That’s a false equivalency. Gay sex is an act between consenting adults. I’ll copy what I wrote in another comment in this thread on the issue of blocking a highway:
In the case of this road thing, my concern stems from people, at night, flooding onto a highway. There’s a good chance multiple people are hit, and killed at those speeds, possibly involving multiple vehicles, maybe a semi-truck. Even the drivers of the cars could be hit by other cars and hurt themselves. Short of that, you have the psychological toll to live with of having accidentally killed someone. It’s really just a bad idea all around on top of not being an effective protest method. For those reasons, I do believe the police acted appropriately to show up, and arrest the people doing it.
I know I said I was out, but I wanted to say thanks for a thoughtful reply. I’m always happy to have discourse without vitriol so I’ll add some more thoughts here.
I think you are being absurd, because our democracy is in critical danger, and you’re worried about a road.
For the record, I’m not at all downplaying the corruption and illegality of the Trump administration. I wholeheartedly support the current criminal court cases going against him and, while I believe all defendants are innocent until proven guilty (doing otherwise would be to turn our backs on one of the tenants of a functioning democracy), I do hope to see him convicted of his crimes once proven in a court of law. I could write a lot more here, but I think we’re basically on the same page with this so I’ll spare the full sermon on the dangers of MAGAism.
In the case of this road thing, my concern stems from people, at night, flooding onto a highway. There’s a good chance multiple people are hit, and killed at those speeds, possibly involving multiple vehicles, maybe a semi-truck. Even the drivers of the cars could be hit by other cars and hurt themselves. Short of that, you have the psychological toll to live with of having accidentally killed someone. It’s really just a bad idea all around on top of not being an effective protest method. For those reasons, I do believe the police acted appropriately to show up, and arrest the people doing it.
On the topic of police, in general this is a difficult topic for me that I honestly don’t really feel qualified to speak on generally so I typically stay silent on it. That’s not because of an unwillingness to help but because I don’t believe in speaking on topics that I don’t feel qualified to speak on. You’re right that I’ve never had bad experiences with police to the point that I felt their actions were unethical or illegal. In fact, in my life I’ve personally known a handful of police officers and each one of them I found to be ethical people who wanted to live peaceful lives and do the right thing with their job. But I also recognize there are many instances of problematic (to put it lightly) policing and have seen many instances in the news demonstrating that. I also recognize that, in general, humans in positions of power tend to abuse that power. That’s why civilian oversight and accountability of police is paramount. That’s something that’s clearly lacking currently given the strength of police unions, as one example. Overall, I think it’s a system that needs reform, but I wouldn’t go so far as to throw out the whole system because what would it be replaced with? You can’t have a society without some way to enforce laws (like enforcing illegal and dangerous protests), but you also can’t have a police state. That’s what I mean by there’s a difficult nuance here, but I also recognize that I don’t know what that is and why I’m hesitant to even type this up right now. That’s also not to diminish your experiences, I’m sure they’re just as valid as mine, likely moreso given your experiences and my comparative lack thereof. I’d be happy to learn more about them if you want to share.
Calling people “fuckers”, “chodes”, etc. is part of my vernacular, as with many others of my generation; you shouldn’t take it so hard. The point isn’t to degrade you, but to snap your attention.
I’ve been on the internet for long enough to have been called much worse names many times before, I have a pretty thick skin at this point (see the other person on this thread telling me how I’m a fucktard and no one likes me, again, as if that’s going to accomplish anything). My point here was though that text based communication carries a negativity bias with it. In that we tend to assume bad intent and starting with language like that only serves to immediately make folks retreat to their corners where no constructive dialog can be made. Ultimately your goal is to sway more people to your side, right? The most effective way to do that is to engage with them rather than use what is traditionally considered offensive language in an attempt to get their attention.
In short, my general view is that the best, and really only, way to preserve democracy is to support its institutions. Those same institutions that told Trump “no” when he tried to falsely claim he won the 2020 election. I know they’re not perfect, but tearing down those institutions instead of reforming and strengthening them is not the way to preserve a democracy in times of trouble. Call me naive and idealistic, maybe I am, but at the end of the day governments are based on the faith of the people that live under them. I have to maintain my faith in America’s democratic institutions because without that faith they crumble and die which is exactly what neither of us want to see happen.
Protest SHOULD be disruptive, like strikes, which actually affect change! While those protesting (actual patriots, take notes) are risking their lives (literally), you’re slightly inconvenienced.
Sure, strike all you want. That’s not putting yourself and drivers on a highway in danger. Or shining a laser into a helicopter blinding the pilot while flying over a populated area. Indeed these people are risking their lives, but also putting other’s lives at risk too, especially when doing this stunt at night in the middle of an active highway. It’s not just a slight inconvenience, it’s stupid, misplaced, and irresponsible.
But alright my man, if that’s how you feel so be it, it’s your prerogative to be angry and call the people that would otherwise support your cause a “chode” and telling them to “fuck off” multiple times. The reason we’re in this situation is because of the anger and extremism. You know, I used to have a harder line on all of this stuff too, but after spending time having real conversations with people I disagreed with came around to realize that internet discourse is pure sensationalism and doesn’t reflect the real world. If we could turn down the volume then this extremism on both sides would not be necessary. Fighting fire with fire is always a losing game for both sides.
If you’d be willing to have an open mind for 15 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY
Anyway, I’m out. I came to this community for tech privacy issues, but it’s quickly turning into conspiracy and political theater so I unjoined it entirely. Take care.
No, the point is that there are not effective ways to protest anymore, by design!
There is no one stopping you from protesting peacefully and without public disruption (like blocking roads) just as people in decades past did. What the people did in this video was clearly illegal and the police were correct to arrest those responsible. That’s not defending “the police state,” it’s recognizing that a group of people were doing something clearly illegal and being arrested for it accordingly without, from what I can tell form the video, excessive use of force.
You can sit by and watch the country crumble and succumb to corruption.
Lawlessness is not the answer. That includes blocking highways, assaulting the US Capitol, whatever. These are matters for the courts to decide based on rule of law. Which by the way, in this situation threw out every single one of Trump’s challenges to the election. You’re allowed to be jaded, but don’t confuse that with throwing out the entire system instead of attempting to fix its ills in a constructive way.
But sure, call me a “chode” for having a nuanced take on something and understanding that the world is not black and white. Insulting people is a wonderful way to sway opinion. Let’s turn down the toxicity here.
How would you feel if a bunch of Trump supporters started blocking the highway to protest that the election was stolen from him? The point is that there are effective ways to protest and blocking highways is not one of them regardless of if you agree with the protesters or not. You’ll never attract anyone to your point of view by talking down to them and telling them to “fuck off with your trash take.”
- It’s really difficult to take such a heavily edited video with shitty music seriously.
- What exactly does this reveal? That the police use helicopters with various cameras and radios to communicate? Uh, no shit. Anyone that’s watched one of those police chase shows in the past few decades could tell you that.
- You know what everyone hates? Traffic. Shutting down a highway has to be the absolute worst possible way to get people to join your movement. It’s obnoxious and dangerous. These people deserve to be arrested regardless of what disperse orders were or were not given.
- Shining a laser at an aircraft is extremely dangerous. Ask any pilot how it can be blinding. The person doing that 100% should be arrested.
And what exactly does this have to do with privacy anyway? Nothing here belongs in this community.
I’m a Kagi subscriber. I agree it’s somewhat expensive, but they’re also a startup and doing the insanely difficult task of taking on Google. Kagi has completely replaced Google for me in the past few months and I’ve really been enjoying having a search engine that’s not full of ads and I can tailor to my interests.
Write to your country’s anti-trust body if you feel Google is unilaterally going after the open web with WEI (content below taken from HN thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36880390).
US:
EU:
UK:
India:
Example email:
Google has proposed a new Web Environment Integrity standard, outlined here: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/…
This standard would allow Google applications to block users who are not using Google products like Chrome or Android, and encourages other web developers to do the same, with the goal of eliminating ad blockers and competing web browsers.
Google has already begun implementing this in their browser here: https://github.com/chromium/chromium/commit/6f47a22906b28994…
Basic facts:
- Google is a developer of popular websites such as google.com and youtube.com (currently the two most popular websites in the world according to SimilarWeb)
- Google is the developer of the most popular browser in the world, Chrome, with around 65% of market share. Most other popular browsers are based on Chromium, also developed primarily by Google.
- Google is the developer of the most popular mobile operating system in the world, Android, with around 70% of market share.
Currently, Google’s websites can be viewed on any web-standards-compliant browser on a device made by any manufacturer. This WEI proposal would allow Google websites to reject users that are not running a Google-approved browser on a Google-approved device. For example, Google could require that Youtube or Google Search can only be viewed using an official Android app or the Chrome browser, thereby noncompetitively locking consumers into using Google products while providing no benefit to those consumers.
Google is also primarily an ad company, with the majority of its revenue coming from ads. Google’s business model is challenged by browsers that do not show ads the way Google intends. This proposal would encourage any web developer using Google’s ad services to reject users that are not running a verified Google-approved version of Chrome, to ensure ads are viewed the way the advertiser wishes. This is not a hypothetical hidden agenda, it is explicitly stated in the proposal:
“Users like visiting websites that are expensive to create and maintain, but they often want or need to do it without paying directly. These websites fund themselves with ads, but the advertisers can only afford to pay for humans to see the ads, rather than robots. This creates a need for human users to prove to websites that they’re human, sometimes through tasks like challenges or logins.”
The proposed solution here is to allow web developers to reject any user that cannot prove they have viewed Google-served ads with their own human eyes.
It is essential to combat this proposal now, while it is still in an early stage. Once this is rolled out into Chrome and deployed around the world, it will be extremely difficult to rollback. It may be impossible to prevent this proposal if Google is allowed to continue owning the entire stack of website, browser, operating system, and hardware.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
Sure, but what exactly does this video reveal? All I got out of it was that they have a helicopter with various cameras and radios to communicate with. I’d hardly call that “revealing state trooper surveillance capabilities, tactics, and communications.” Is it really something that’s not already common knowledge?