mooseburger

Eh. The Soviet Union really was a uniquely dysfunctional place. The level of reality denial and sucking up to the higher ups that led to Chernobyl is not commonplace.

Hasn't that always been the case in China?

That's probably a "golden" opportunity for the MPAA and the like. Implicate a Pirate Bay link with "neo-nazis" or "racists", watch it go down shortly after. Perhaps Alex Jones or Sargon of Akkad could start using it as another platform to distribute their content.

Wasn't Europe always like that though? I don't think that has to do with petrol prices.

> Carbon pricing (which can come in the form of a tax or cap and trade) is the single most effective mechanism to address climate change.

Is it? That's how France ended up with the yellow vests. It seems likely that demand for fossil fuels will prove rather inelastic, such that everyone just ends up paying more and not changing behavior in a significant enough way.

Jinzaemon is not black (that's who you meant right?):

https://sekiroshadowsdietwice.wiki.fextralife.com/Jinzaemon+...

From the wiki though: > (Japanese Default Language version) He has a Westernized Japanese accent, it may be a tribute to Yasuke (African Samurai) in 1579.

Erm, ok, that's a weird reach the wiki is making. You can see closeups of his face right beneath that sentence.

No, I don't. Neo-nazis have always existed, have always killed people, and have always been very few. Same for any other group you care to name. Violence overall is on a down trend.

Some of the best art resonates best with people who have experienced significant suffering, such as yourself. I have recommendations, if you want them, but ultimately, I think there is a way out of your suffering, and it lies within you. I do not mean that it is necessarily possible to change your external circumstances, but I do mean you don't need to change your external circumstances to experience contentment or even happiness.

Utterly nonsensical. You don't need the internet to be radicalized, people have been willing to kill in the name of their convictions for as long as humans have existed. I predict even if somehow every white supremacist were booted off the internet, no lives at all would be saved, as they just don't need the internet to kill people, or to learn to hate.

This is purely giving up rights for the sake of security theatre.

There are many ways around global warming, of which current Democrat policy is just one. Republicans are being silly by not proposing alternative approaches to this problem, agreed, but they absolutely can.

One that does not serve the interests of any one political faction.

That's fine, as long as scientists are fully conscious of the cognitive biases induced by their politics. There is definitely a phenomenon of academia trying to pass off political conviction as empirical fact.

Given that the universe was not made for the enjoyment of humans, everyone needs to be prepared to accept their preferred policies may have no empirical backing.

Don't try to scapegoat, it's a collective action problem, everyone on the planet is responsible for this. Think about how painful it would be for you to totally wean yourself off fossil fuels. It's the same at the nation level.

The U.S. and Europe can't actually do much about this though. Look at this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...

If everyone in the US and Europe dropped dead, that would be about a 24% decrease in global GHG emissions. Said emissions need to be 40% to 70% lower by 2050, according to the IPCC (https://www.climatecentral.org/news/major-greenhouse-gas-red...).

Bottom line, you're not getting anywhere without a truly formidable effort by China, and likely Central/South America and Africa as well.

Generation of CP harms others yes, but propagation does not. Always did regard the criminalization of possession and propagation of CP as a censorious overreach.

> ISISchan.org

No need for that, 4chan is a free for all. It's where I saw most ISIS execution videos.

Or not. Pretty sure it wasn't willpower, delayed gratification, and discipline that kept people from being fat back in the 50s or 60s. Something changed in the food, or, worst case scenario, abundant cheap food means it's easier to get fat now than ever before.

Yes, but I am stating it's near guaranteed that criminalizing consumption in this case has no effect on the production of it. The "good" being child rape, do you actually believe there are people who have raped children purely to take pictures and videos, and distribute (not sell) them? Absent people doing that, criminalizing child pornography possession protects no children.

Yes I would. Answering otherwise leads straight into Minority Report.

It still rubs me the wrong way that simple possession of child pornography is illegal. It's obviously a good idea to criminalize production of child pornography, and possibly the sale of as well, assuming that sales of child porn incentivize production of it, but images and video do not actually harm any children, meaning criminalizing possession does nothing, and is in fact an example of censorious and moralistic government overreach.

Consider that it is perfectly legal to watch cartel or ISIS execution videos, and that the acts depicted in such videos are far worse than child rape. You disagree? Are you saying you would rather be flayed alive than be retroactively raped as a child and live with the trauma of it? Under what principle does it make sense that possession of gore videos is legal, and possession of child pornography is not?

That's pretty bad. Yet another sign of increasing Chinese dominance. I can't imagine an autocracy like China becoming the greatest superpower will work out well for anyone.

I have been addicted to 4chan for 10 years now, /pol/ since inception, and this is the first I hear of meritocracy being white supremacy.

/pol/ in particular gets a lot of fun from getting progressives to jump at shadows ("It's ok to be white", and that unsuccessful campaign to turn a lone black dot into a symbol of white supremacy). The "O.K. symbol as white supremacist" also came from them I think, and the intent was to get progressives to seem crazy for flipping out at something so innocuous.

Everything would have played out exactly the same even with no Russian interference. There are some big value clashes going on in America, and since there is no established way to make is-ought leaps, facts are not of critical importance in resolving these. Not that reality favors either side anyway.

No, having an image of [thing] is not the same as having [thing], ceci n'est pas une pipe. Replicators would change that, true.

Reductively, a gun is a pile of atoms, like everything else, but unlike child pornography, it has the capability of acting upon the material world.

Legal child pornography wouldn't mean legal child rape though, or even being able to legally purchase it. Could be something like what France does with prostitution, where only soliciting is criminalized, e.g. purchasing and production remain criminal, but not mere possession, which technically harms no one, even if it triggers strong disgust.

In fairness, the only point of this would be a more purist implementation of freedom of speech, but well, the status quo is rather pointless too.

Is there really a point to being this strict about child pornography? I'm still uncomfortable with the implications of certain configurations of numbers being illegal, and it's unlikely these laws/bans protect any children, unless there are people who exclusively rape children to distribute the resulting images and videos, which seems dubious.

I can understand individual sites taking down such images, but anything further seems like overreach.

> We have consensus on basic ethical norms

On some, but morality has not been resolved, not even close.

> isnt it possible to identify which courses of action/inaction (regardless of bent) lead to ethical outcomes

No, figuring out all the consequences of a given action quickly gets intractable the bigger the action is. You can make predictions as to the effect of a law or policy, but you usually can't make guarantees as to their effects. nth order effects keep piling up.

It doesn't matter if you're 30 or 50 or 60, there's all sorts of controversial opinions these days that are verboten. No, they're not all "shitty opinions".

1) Splitting hairs. Swap it for Sarah Jeong if you like. 2) Could quite easily be a true statement, if a controversial and uncomfortable one.

They both happened. It's an accurate description of the state of discourse.