constantius

You're talking about the party. You're not saying anything wrong, but parent was talking about the voters.

It is true that the issues of people who vote far-right are ridiculed, and they themselves are demonised, which the parent holds, and I agree, is unproductive.

Far-right voters are largely the losers of globalisation/economic growth trying whatever they can to improve their situation: the phenomenon of many of these voters alternating between far-right and far-left from one election to the other is one of many indicators of what their real goal is, ie improving their situation.

Re migration: it does have negative effects on the economically marginalised, which the readership of HN and the talking heads in mainstream media are largely not. Among these are increasing housing costs, downward pressure on salaries, rapid and alienating shifts in cultural (and I mean cultural, not racial) makeup of cities and neighbourhoods: none of this should be controversial.

The establishment parties (so right and "left" like SPD, Labour, PS) have financial incentives to increase migration, which they do (see the Boris wave in the UK).

While migration is not an inherent evil at all, the way it's done by these parties does lead to negative effects, which adds one reason among many to vote for the far-right. So the short-term solution (curbing migration) is the simple and popular answer. The long-term solution (curbing capitalism) is harder and unpopular, so radical left parties unfortunately get fewer votes (except in France, where there's a real chance of the LFI showing a better path).

I believe I attended those rallies you mention: those slogans were anti-Zionist, ie anti-genocide/settler-colonialism/war. I'd bet that a significant minority of the rally attendants were Jewish.

I imagine this fixes the misunderstanding. See you at the next rally, friend!

KDE Connect: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45557599

Ah you said it much better than I did, I'll link your comment.

You have a conclusion that you want to defend and some biases you're unaware of, so you're also not aware how tortured this argument sounds.

Pick some other topic. For example: are people who thinkthat slavery is inherently and always wrong just stupid extremists, compared to people who accept that 'some' slavery is fine?

I feel like you're the type to walk around with calipers.

Edit: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49436484 for a better written argument.

They are rationalisations: 'whatever makes a change to my situation' is a ticket that appeals to a lot of the poorer people, and it of course won't be the Tories or Labour, or their stand-ins in other countries. A huge amount of people alternate between the extremes of the spectrum.

Painting all far-right voters as evil is wrong and unproductive. Saying this as a far-left voter.

Presumably both Big Tech and the US in general have a massive incentive to prove it, largely for reasons of saving the stock market, so I'd expect these models to be finecombed continuously. Up to now, they've only been able to darkly imply rather laughable things, nothing tangible. If there was something, we'd hear about it.

> You are arguing that terrorist attacks on public transport in the UK are mythical or dramatised?

What kind of question is that? Did I ask you if you're calling cameras in the UK mythical?

Same as what you said about London, I'm arguing you're dramatising the dire threat of terrorism on the good people sitting in the tube.

In a thread where we're discussing the systematically verified risks of a slippery slope of surveillance measures and the introduction of extremely invasive surveillance in the tube, clutching your pearls about the mean terrorists threatening the public transports for literal generations is a ridiculous exaggeration that carries the same value as "think of the children". How are cameras going to protect you? Do you think they see people's intentions? Even the police didn't use the terrorism excuse for this.

Sorry for the tone, but this wilful misunderstanding of my comments and your statement about the Irish being to blame for the Troubles make it difficult to engage in a gentlemanly manner.

> I am aware and never claimed that

Your comment very much implies a strong link between the two however. That you then switch from data centres to factories is also a shift that is not related to the discussion at hand.

Personally, everything I've read on the issue indicates that the water usage, for a product that I hear mentioned daily by people in the street, is insignificant.

I have many qualms with AI, mainly about the politics of AI labs and its effects on inequality, and I am active in this field. But I see its environmental costs as a weak argument and don't use it, despite of how receptive people that I try to convince are to it: it uses much less energy, harms many fewer animals, and serves more of a purpose than animal agriculture, so I prefer to move my environmental actions towards that.

> based on myth and dramatisation

> We have had generations of terror threats to and attacks on our railway system, trains, railway stations

I think your take might be based on myth and dramatisation too, as well as a misunderstanding of what the purpose of surveillance is (it's not about protecting children, or trains).

And agree with sibling about Ireland: the Troubles would have been solved by getting the hell out.

I invite you to check how the English government is reacting to independentist movements in Scotland and Ireland post-Brexit if you think they're happy to let people be.

I think your understanding of 'proactively' might just be different from parent's (and mine).

I'd agree that entities that provide their users' data upon a simple request, and a carveout in regulations that allows (not forces) them to do so, fits the definition of proactive.

You are in a new country and feel that your kid needs protection, which is perfectly human, but does mean that your opinion is a bit biased.

As sibling comments mention, countries exist with many cameras, public or private, where driving feels worse. I didn't look at road deaths, but I'd be surprised if Portugal is among the leading countries on this.

Equally, if you take a bit of distance, you can realise that Portugal has many other parents living there, yet they are not clamouring for more surveillance: it's difficult to imagine that the Portuguese dictatorial government is evilly preventing its people from accessing the benefits of surveillance.

Yes: the content is very different from what I remembered it as from back when I first visited it after Aaron died, I don't know how the website went where it went, and I'm sorry I didn't check prior to posting.

Updated link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Bushnell

Thanks, updated link below: seems to have been changed since last time I saw it back when it all happened, sorry!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Bushnell

Thanks for quoting, I wasn't going to read the article, but now I realise the author is obviously onto something and I'd do well to read him.

I think it was your reading that is faulty, the commenter wasn't subtle and didn't undermine anything.

Can you stop playing the game of owning people with teenager level zingers based on you yourself being too thick?

Thanks for surfacing this. As another user says below, Mitchell had more leeway in choosing his investors than most anyone. His is a dispiriting choice.

Bought the documentary and will be buying it for some friends, thanks!

You're strawmanning, or having difficulty reading.

Whatever my personal opinions about copyright, this whole thread is about copyright set at 2000 years vs 20, so that answers your first 2 points.

For the last one, 'losing value' obviously doesn't mean they can be safely binned, but that the publisher has no return on keeping it in publication. Again, this is what the entire thread is about.

A famous paper argued that, from 1960 to 2006, nonviolent resistance was twice as likely as violent resistance to achieve its goal: it's a paper that most activists I've ever met had heard of. The reasons are largely the perception of violent resistance by the bystanders, meaning the population.

However, there have been a number of criticisms to the paper about data coding, methodology, and interpretation/motivated reasoning. Recently, the author has also acknowledged that governments have adapted since 2006: her data says nonviolent resistance is still more effective, but that the success rate has cratered.

I tried to find some of the criticisms, but it's recent, so all AI generated, so I won't link before reading, but the criticisms I'm aware of I think are robust. All this to say, the idea that nonviolent resistance is more effective is comfortable and feels better, and there is a paper that says so, but your examples and those of a child comment are not about resistance to armed colonial oppression and it's not enough to form a blanket opinion about violent resistance.

This is an edge case. The vast majority of intellectual output loses value extremely fast. If a new Kafka comes along and their writing becomes popular 30 years after publication, they will have 0 issues getting a fat contract for a new book.

Justifications for copyright are always built on edge cases, seemingly moral justifications of an empirically immoral practice. Yes, it'd be nice if a single handicapped mother of 2 coild see her children rise out of poverty thanks to her writing talent after 50 years. In practice, this person doesn't exist and building society around that scenario is not a good thing.

These 'what ifs' have the same value and do the same damage as 'who will think of the children' do for human rights.

To your second point: a company (or any kind of organisation) is continuous work. It's a very obvious retort to your analogy. It would be akin to the author writing a book in a series every year for twenty years, then giving their rights to their child who keeps writing books every year, and every book only has 20 years of copyright. Seems fair to me.

To your first point: inheritance has a concentrating effect on wealth. Concentration of wealth is not a good thing, as it breeds inequality by definition.

If your grandparents gave you a house for free, and you used that enormous advantage to pur your money elsewhere and then own 2, 3 houses, and your child then gets 10, that's 10 houses that people could own themselves, instead of paying the highest rent that your child can get away with.

If you have any experience of poverty, you should understand how viscerally unfair the existence of 'rich kids' seem, and how damaging it is to society.

> Is there a spiritual way to kill an animal? How would Jesus kill an animal?

Amazing question. I'm not spiritual, but regularly debate this topic with others (including here): this will be a useful way of approaching it. Thanks for posting the link!

As another sibling points out, creation before the fall, so.the animals and humans in the garden of eden, were vegan.

There is also a theory that Jesus was vegan and a belief that Christians should be too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_vegetarianism#Biblic...

The idea that wars, epidemics, and catastrophes lead to wealth redistribution is the thesis of "The Great Leveler" by Walter Schneidel: it's not an absolute rule (and as far as I remember, another book was published to criticise this one), but it seems to hold through a change in power dynamics, supply and demand of labour, and coordination between the previously oppressed classes.

I'm not using this to post religious flamebait, and to anyone thinking I'm attacking their faith: this is not my intent, and I'm for sure not singling out Christianity.

I find history fascinating, especially the history of religion, and my views on it are in line with my contributions and discussions on HN about authoritarianism, surveillance, oppression, etc.. It's unfortunate that wanting to give some visibility to a little known episode of history and then engaging in debate about a passion of mine is seen by you as disingenuous.

As a preamble, I don't want to attack your faith.

However, the argument here is not that Christians side with the elite, but that the Church does. The Church has sided with the powerful again and again over the centuries, to great effect for its own wealth, going against what was objectively (ie not only by today's standards) morally right, and very much against scripture.

Your own argument that submission to God supersedes submission to government is one that the Church, as an institution, rarely abides by. By any reasonable reading of his sayings, Jesus would have preached against oppression of the poor, slavery, war, politically-convenient massacres, even the selling of indulgences. From the 4th century on, the Church has been part and parcel of oppression in all its forms, at enormous benefit to itself, and often against what the oppressed wished.

The changes that the Church made to early Christianity (centralisation, violent standardisation of beliefs, empowerment of the clergy) might have been sincere, but the continuing plight of the poor while the Church became one of the richest and most powerful institution in this part of the world is difficult to see as an an unfortunate coincidence.

If the Church is happy to call for the killing of peasants while at the same time initiating and celebrating massacres during the Crusades (a period of a Christian caliphate), among many many examples, it's only right that the institution be seen as an oppressor that has not much in common with Jesus or Christians.

Again, I'm not talking about Christians, or even individual priests, but the institution itself. I think Jesus had beautiful ideas, but it's difficult to know anything about history and not despise the Church.

Agreed, and the fact that he's not today recognised as a martyr is telling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M%C3%BCntzer

No religion is unscathed: joining with the powers that be and lagging behind every ethical development is the rule, for sure, but I had mistakenly believed that at least the founding had been devoid of the usual hypocrisies and blood. Alas.

i discovered this event by reading Sartre's play "The devil and the good lord" (Le diable et le bon dieu): not historical in any way, simply takes the uprising as context, but a masterpiece nonetheless.