I see you're using your own, private dictionary again.
Why shouldn't I?
It seems everyone else does
Read the following from the wikipedia article on "Definitions of Fascism"
What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments has been a complicated and highly disputed subject concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets debated amongst historians, political scientists, and other scholars since Benito Mussolini first used the term in 1915.
If you read the rest of that article you will see that my definition is not an outlier.
I think you make an artificial distinction between the state and the community. Every community of any size has leaders who organise things on behalf of the community.
If the whole nation constitutes the community then the community==the state.
Fascism is a doctrine about the relation of government to constituents. So is socialism.
Not really true. Fascism is about the relationship of a particular subgroup in society to the rest. Whether that subgroup controls the government is not the point.
Any mob can act quite effectively as Nazis.
On the other hand socialism is really about relations within a subgroup.
It can also exist as a society within the rest of society.
Arguably the early Christian church was socialist in that sense - since they held all things in common. This tradition is continued by monastic communities to this day.
It's rather depressing to see a major country like Russia, after many years of trying to establish a western-style liberal democracy, slowly reverting back to Soviet-style totalitarianism
To which you could add "driven in that direction by Western Politicians who actually prefer having Russia as an enemy."
The fact is that during the Soviet era the west cultivated any group within the eastern bloc that was anti-soviet. They never enquired as to whether the group was actually anti-communist or really just anti-Russian.
When the cold war ended they continued to support those groups, when rationally they should have re-assessed and been even handed between Russia and its historic (pre 20th century) enemies.
What they actually did was absolutely guranteed to produce the result that we see.
Yes, you'll hand power over to the... mostly the same government and corporations that control the current system, and are largely responsible for you needing a car in the first place.
NO
you'll hand EVEN MORE DETAILED AND FINE GRAINED power over to the... mostly the same government and corporations that control the current system, and are largely responsible for you needing a car in the first place.
It's politicians, who really do believe that if you can stop the speech you solve the problems
I don't think it's as general as that. Censorship is usually put in place to protect a lie. So what are the lies that the politicians want to protect?
By the way - from the links posted later on about this it seems that not only can you be prosecuted for posting something that someone else finds offensive (no matter how irrationally) but you can also be prosecuted for posting something that someone thinks someone else will think is offensive...
, there's a suggestion that he is rather less the "Jack The Lad" he makes himself out to be...
Funnily that's not what I got from your two links - quite the reverse in fact.
I got a telling statement from his solicitor:
Mr Brown said there was no evidence of a complainer in the case, adding Police Scotland was not contacted by anyone who found the video "grossly offensive or menacing.
He added that it seems that the police pursued the matter themselves in an attempt to establish their diversity credentials.
I also got a statement of support from Ricky Gervais and a comment that Jewish comedian David Baddiel had also supported the accused.
Just as well that we hadn't got to that point when "The Producers" came out - Mel Brooks could have been in trouble.
More seriously, we need to look at who is pushing this nonsense and why.
This may just be a stupid prank but the idea that is now in the law is that what matters is that someone feels offended rather than whether the speech in question is actually offensive (and by the way it doesn't even seem to matter if the speech is simply reporting a true fact). This seems to be so open to abuse that it makes me wionder who wants to abuse it..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Human drivers outnumber autonomous by, say, 10,000 to 1...
You might have missed it, but that is already happening.
No - I knew that lots of vehicle manufacturers were doing this.
My point was that really - that type of approach is the way forward. What Google, Uber etc are doing is probably a dead end.
Several freeways around here have the typical California 70MPH-to-stopped for no apparent reason.
Yes - I calculated once that the effect travels backwards up the carriageway at about 1500 mph!
On the post: Twitter Nukes American Attorney's Tweet About Unflattering Depiction Of Turkish President
more to the point than this
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/03/23/unreal-charges-against-erdogan-thugs-drop ped-n2463761
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: For the Dogs..
I see you're using your own, private dictionary again.
Why shouldn't I?
It seems everyone else does
Read the following from the wikipedia article on "Definitions of Fascism"
What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments has been a complicated and highly disputed subject concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets debated amongst historians, political scientists, and other scholars since Benito Mussolini first used the term in 1915.
If you read the rest of that article you will see that my definition is not an outlier.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: For the Dogs..
If the whole nation constitutes the community then the community==the state.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: For the Dogs..
Fascism is a doctrine about the relation of government to constituents. So is socialism.
Not really true. Fascism is about the relationship of a particular subgroup in society to the rest. Whether that subgroup controls the government is not the point.
Any mob can act quite effectively as Nazis. On the other hand socialism is really about relations within a subgroup.
It can also exist as a society within the rest of society.
Arguably the early Christian church was socialist in that sense - since they held all things in common. This tradition is continued by monastic communities to this day.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Comedy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM
On the post: New Orleans' Secret Predictive Policing Software Challenged In Court
Re: Re:
Such people have a tendency to believe what the little back box tells them in the teeth of the obvious evidence of their own eyeballs.
On the post: Facebook Working With Comcast To Scuttle California Broadband Privacy Protections
Outraged
On the post: Russian Court Says Telegram Must Hand Over Encryption Keys To State Intelligence Service
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Russian Court Says Telegram Must Hand Over Encryption Keys To State Intelligence Service
Re:
Because if GOOD guys can get it, then BAD guys can get it.
You mean:
Because if our BAD guys can get it, then other peoples BAD guys can get it.
On the post: Russian Court Says Telegram Must Hand Over Encryption Keys To State Intelligence Service
Re:
It's rather depressing to see a major country like Russia, after many years of trying to establish a western-style liberal democracy, slowly reverting back to Soviet-style totalitarianism
To which you could add "driven in that direction by Western Politicians who actually prefer having Russia as an enemy."
The fact is that during the Soviet era the west cultivated any group within the eastern bloc that was anti-soviet. They never enquired as to whether the group was actually anti-communist or really just anti-Russian.
When the cold war ended they continued to support those groups, when rationally they should have re-assessed and been even handed between Russia and its historic (pre 20th century) enemies.
What they actually did was absolutely guranteed to produce the result that we see.
On the post: Tempe Police Chief Indicates The Uber Self-Driving Car Probably Isn't At Fault In Pedestrian Death
Re: Re:
Yes, you'll hand power over to the... mostly the same government and corporations that control the current system, and are largely responsible for you needing a car in the first place.
NO
you'll hand EVEN MORE DETAILED AND FINE GRAINED power over to the... mostly the same government and corporations that control the current system, and are largely responsible for you needing a car in the first place.
On the post: Tempe Police Chief Indicates The Uber Self-Driving Car Probably Isn't At Fault In Pedestrian Death
Re: Re: Re:
in that area in that week alone, 10 other pedestrians were killed by human drivers.
That suggests that the roads in that area are badly designed.
However, one thing bugs me. Even if the self driving car was completely blameless it was only there are part of an experiment.
If the experiment had not been taking place the woman would still be alive.
I don't think this experiment would get though ethical review in my institution.
On the post: YouTuber Who Trained His Girlfriend's Dog To Be A Nazi Facing Hate Crime Charges In Scotland
Re: Re: Re: Re: Springtime for Hitler
After that they can slowly spread the net wider.
First they came for the Nazis....
On the post: YouTuber Who Trained His Girlfriend's Dog To Be A Nazi Facing Hate Crime Charges In Scotland
Re: Re: Springtime for Hitler
It's politicians, who really do believe that if you can stop the speech you solve the problems
I don't think it's as general as that. Censorship is usually put in place to protect a lie. So what are the lies that the politicians want to protect?
By the way - from the links posted later on about this it seems that not only can you be prosecuted for posting something that someone else finds offensive (no matter how irrationally) but you can also be prosecuted for posting something that someone thinks someone else will think is offensive...
On the post: YouTuber Who Trained His Girlfriend's Dog To Be A Nazi Facing Hate Crime Charges In Scotland
Re:
, there's a suggestion that he is rather less the "Jack The Lad" he makes himself out to be...
Funnily that's not what I got from your two links - quite the reverse in fact.
I got a telling statement from his solicitor:
Mr Brown said there was no evidence of a complainer in the case, adding Police Scotland was not contacted by anyone who found the video "grossly offensive or menacing. He added that it seems that the police pursued the matter themselves in an attempt to establish their diversity credentials.
I also got a statement of support from Ricky Gervais and a comment that Jewish comedian David Baddiel had also supported the accused.
On the post: YouTuber Who Trained His Girlfriend's Dog To Be A Nazi Facing Hate Crime Charges In Scotland
Springtime for Hitler
More seriously, we need to look at who is pushing this nonsense and why.
This may just be a stupid prank but the idea that is now in the law is that what matters is that someone feels offended rather than whether the speech in question is actually offensive (and by the way it doesn't even seem to matter if the speech is simply reporting a true fact). This seems to be so open to abuse that it makes me wionder who wants to abuse it..
On the post: Pedestrian Deaths By Car In Phoenix Area Last Week: 11. But One Was By A Self-Driving Uber
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Broken Sarcasm meter
No insurance covers the deliberate acts of the insured,
I think you'll find that that is not actually true - perhaps surprisingly:
https://www.digbybrown.co.uk/solicitors/clients/can-motor-insurers-be-liable-for-the-d eliberate-criminal-acts-of-drivers
On the post: Pedestrian Deaths By Car In Phoenix Area Last Week: 11. But One Was By A Self-Driving Uber
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Human drivers outnumber autonomous by, say, 10,000 to 1...
On the post: Pedestrian Deaths By Car In Phoenix Area Last Week: 11. But One Was By A Self-Driving Uber
Re: Re: Re: Re: Human drivers outnumber autonomous by, say, 10,000 to 1...
You might have missed it, but that is already happening.
No - I knew that lots of vehicle manufacturers were doing this. My point was that really - that type of approach is the way forward. What Google, Uber etc are doing is probably a dead end.
Several freeways around here have the typical California 70MPH-to-stopped for no apparent reason.
Yes - I calculated once that the effect travels backwards up the carriageway at about 1500 mph!
On the post: Pedestrian Deaths By Car In Phoenix Area Last Week: 11. But One Was By A Self-Driving Uber
Re:
Gotta keep an eye on how this will develop. I'm hoping it was some sort of negligence by the pedestrian.
In this situation it is ALWAYS the machine's fault.
That is how the public will view it .
Next >>