“Essential” implies more than just a small part, but if you want to claim otherwise you are free to do so.
Do you also say “no, ALL lives matter?”
Because project management is comparable to civil rights? That’s some weak sauce whattaboutism.
Downvotes with no actual reasoning behind them?
I am shocked, shocked i tell you.
So , given that New Zealand and Australia are using their law based framework to deny visa access it’s all good right ?
I also noted you conveniently didn’t address this in your response.
Yes freedom of speech ends at criminal action or illegal behavior. That is where those boundaries exist. If they do not end at that juncture then where do they end?
I’m not saying that laws aren’t useful for this purpose I’m saying that using laws as a baseline without accounting for laws being different in different places is a weak argument foundation, not even mentioning that laws change over time based on unlawful actions being allowed and previously lawful actions now being denied, so not only do you need to account for geographic location you also need to account for time.
As an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67601647
By your proposed framework, you’re cool with this because their freedom of speech (or i suppose expression in this instance) is illegal.
To be clear, if you are cool with that, you do you, I’m not your parent, nor am i any moral or ethical authority. I’m using it as an example to gauge how married you are to the idea of laws as absolutes when it comes to freedom.
So your baseline is whether or not something is criminal.
That’s easily solved, create laws outlawing the undesirable behaviour, such as the ones in Germany regarding Nazi paraphernalia.
Or the ones defining potentially damaging behaviour as a reason for denying visa access… give it a sec, I’m sure you’ll get it.
Obligatory, countries outside of the US exist and, I imagine rather inconveniently for your argument, have their own laws.
But if your definition of the basis of democracy is freedom of speech except for when there is a law specifically preventing it then you probably have bigger concerns than weak foundations for your arguments.
Shaw explained that the act of asset reuse is essential in stopping crunch
Utter bullshit, you stop crunch with realistic timeframes and competent planning/project management.
Asset reuse could be part of that sure, but making out like it’s essential is a geometric fractal of red flags holding other, smaller, red flags.
Sure, as i said, i don’t disagree with that.
What does that argument have to do with whether or not people should assigned some responsibility for how they voted (or didn’t) ?
Yes everyone understands all that. But are you saying we people that vote blue should keep trying the same failing tactics?
No, but if your tactic changes haven’t been implemented by the time voting comes around and the choice remains “nazi’s vs not nazi’s” then you should be voting “not nazi’s”.
“The Dems continue to fuck up repeatedly, so i can understand why people chose nazi this time” isn’t a tenable argument.
I’m not disagreeing with your disappointment in, well, everything.
I’m disagreeing with this part of your previous reply
Anyone else other than literally Nazie’s (aka Trump, JD, the majority of RNC members and leaders, and some of their voters), shouldn’t be blamed.
If a person understands that the choice is nazi vs not nazi and then actively chooses to not vote, they are tacitly choosing nazi.
“If i vote for the not-nazi’s, they won’t understand how disappointed in them i am” is not a good argument.
“Their policies don’t align with what i want” is not a good argument
“They don’t represent my values” is not a good argument
There is no good beginning half to the sentence “< INSERT REASON HERE >, so i tacitly enabled the nazi’s”
Except maybe, “I genuinely believe the alternative is worse, so i tacitly enabled the nazi’s”.
Even then i’d probably disagree, but it would be a substantive argument.
If you don’t have xyz why should I vote for you?
because in an effectively two party system where neither party has xyz you should definitely vote for the party that also aren’t nazi’s ?
The degree of closeness to your ideal of progressive policies doesn’t mean shit when the choice is nazi’s vs not nazi’s.
Unless you are arguing that those weren’t the choices available here ?
Ah, so it’s a mutual block but initiated from one side.
Thanks.
Is…that not what’s supposed to happen?
I don’t have any other socials so I’m not too up on what the standards are.
How so?
IIRC licensing monopolies and capitalist bullshit.
old link but still : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26143407
Do note that religion only ever seems to be a problem when it’s conservative or authoritarian, a pattern that holds for many things outside of religion as well.
That’s disingenuous at best.
Religion is a problem when it used to push principles on to other people ( specifically when those principles are harmful and unwelcome ), conservative and authoritarian principles happen to lend themselves to this kind of behaviour quite readily which is why you see criticism aimed at those types of religions.
and with startling consistency.
Perhaps it might be worth looking in to why this consistency exists.
Mathematically, probably yes.
Ethically and morally, debatable.