Takapapatapaka

Do we really know ? Maybe they believe in our gods ? Maybe they believe in their god, and it's the true one ?

I mean, you mocked them using the exact reasoning you criticize them for, like "making a show of being hated -> attention seeker". But ok, let's forget about that. You may consider that you are actually mocking communities that are the target of true violence, not just downvotes. Like they get hurt, killed, harassed, even by administrations and systems ? Maybe that's the reason for your downvotes. And did you realized that this is really the main use of downvotes ? Just a quick way to react. If you agree/like, upvote. If you do not agree/dislike, downvote. It's very simple really. Either you don't get that, either you are mocking people for using tools the way they were intended to. Both ways seem dumb to me. If you want a place that do not allows this quick reactions that are up/downvotes, well maybe switch for other platforms that are not designed around it ?

Wtf is this argument ? Are you at the same time validating "Ugh trans people are attention seeker, they think they deserve it because people hate on them" and "Hey look at us, we are the heroes of this story because people on internet disagree with us" ? I know i already replied to your other comments, but it's funny it's the same in both case : you just do what you criticize other people for supposedly doing

Eh, in general i agree with you, but i think in this case it could be considered as "ironic". Like someone complains "I'm tired of hearing about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care", and someone replies "Im' tired of hearing complaints about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care". I think we all agree that the argument is not really good in any case, but as the second one was a reply, maybe we can see it as an application of first comment's logic to itself.

The main problem with this subject is that the abaya is not a religious clothing strictly speaking. It is not enforced by any muslim sacred text, a lot of muslim women do not wear it, whereas non-muslim women wear it. It is rather typical from the arabic culture than from the muslim religion (it originated from bedouin culture in the first place).

Here in France people are mad about secularism because of an old hate of Christian Church, but nowadays it is rather used to discriminate jews and muslims. (At school, yarmulke and headscarf are banned, but christian crosses are allowed if they're not too big. Every day i saw people in school with christian crosses around the neck or as earrings, and no one bothered them, while they were harassing girls with a headscarf.)

Imo here the government is just creating a new debate on a stupid question, just to scare people about muslims and give hard right politicians a bone to chew, as they always do. While everyone talks and is afraid about what teenagers could wear, people talk less about the other laws they are passing, for having more control over Internet or whatever they want.

Ok, if you want some info here is a little summary :

• Banning people condamned for bullying/hate speech from every social media they used for it
• Blocking websites (mostly porn) without judge's approval, both physically and by forcing navigators/DNS to block it
• More ID checking to "protect minor"

And if you want details :

The current proposition of law is a melting pot of many Internet security subjects :

• preventing children to access porn
• punishing websites that host pedo porn harder
• punishing deepfake and ai generated montage (and montages in general)
• preventing hate speech and violent speech in all social media, including chat applications
• regulating the market of cloud storage providers
• regulating gambling and real-money video games
• preventing phishing

They have different actions at their disposal :

• Fines for website admins who do not comply
• Forcing websites to check people's identity to prevent minor accessing harming content
• Forcing websites to ban some accounts suspected of illegal activity
• Forcing websites to try and block a suspected person (not the user) from using/creating any accounts on their website (for max. 6 months to 1 year)
• Forcing navigators, DNS providers and Internet compagnies to block any access to a specific domain for max 3 months, if this domain does not comply in (short) time to the administration instructions
• Forcing websites to mention the name and adress of any person or company that host their content
• Forcing apps markets to remove an app that does not comply to the administration instructions
• It would be mandatory for vpn ads to always display a message that says something like "Pirating contents harms artistic creation" (does not have a lot to do with the rest, but it find it interesting anyway)
• It would be mandatory for any content sharing website to stock datas enabling the identification of anyone who participated in the content creation
• Easier police raid in places where content is hosted (no judge approval needed, they just get notified of the raid)

Now, i did not hear from this subject a lot, mostly for the pornography part since we probably soon will have to show ID cards to watch porn. I remember that everytime there are more or less violent protests, government says it originates from social media and that they have to control social media to prevent violences. Most politicians i heard on this seem to not fully understand what is at stake, which is kinda usual.

I understand that you may not like it, or that you may think this is stupid, but to the eyes of the anarchists, they could be fighting both reforms and police. I think some (maybe most of) anarchists are against the idea of reform itself, thinking that complete revolution is the only way. This may sound dumb to you, but they have reason for this : the main argument i know of is that police has already been reformed and still is a problem, or even that police is a problem in itself, reformed or not. (It is reasonable to disagree with this statement, i'm not saying it's right, just reminding their point of view, which explain why they could be against a police reform, and still fighting the police. In other words, it's not just "defending the police / reforming the police", but rather "defending the police / accepting the police / reforming the police / abolishing the police"). There are many ways to fight anything, and it's in the very nature of anarchists to dislike the ways that imply governement/laws/authority.

Oh, okay thank you for clarification. I agree with you, sectarianism is to me one of the biggest problem in far-left groups. But I still think that this is not enough imo to justify that "There is no practical difference" between them and fascists, even if restricted to their behavior on those communities. Anyway, i understand this comment better now, thank you <3

An anarchist is fighting against military/police. A fascist belongs, or wants to, to military/police. An anarchist is fighting against people who hold some power. A fascist is fighting against people because of their religion or origins. An anarchist likes to vote and discuss. A fascist likes to follow orders. An anarchist tends towards decentralization. A fascist tends towards centralization.

This are only some differences but spoiler alert : anarchist and fascist are not the same. They do not act the same way, they do not think the same way.

I understand that you hate them both, it is your point of view, and it's okay. But please, follow my advice : avoid trying to justify it with sentences as universal and strong as "There is no practical difference", it makes the whole thing ridiculous.

In the end, saying there is only "one viable [...] party", and even believing in a party itself, are also part of the problem imo. If you truly believe in this sentence, no wonder why you dislike anarchists and why they probably dislike you. But does it imply that either you or them are fascistic ? And if yes, did you considered that it could be you, who are defending a single "viable" party as the only solution, hating on every other option ?

I agree on the point that "they are racist/pedo because of the power they receive" is pretty much false in this situation.

But i would say that this is not the only meaning behind "Power corrupts". (What follows is only a personnal opinion, there may be some wrong usage of terms or anything) To me, it also means that power corrupts our ways of thinking : believing in a strong power, even if you do not hold it, tends to makes this power more important than human lives or conditions. Like "Police is important, so it's okay if some peoples get hurt to protect it". In other words, the more you believe in power, the more it may become an end rather than a tool. This is were the corruption is to me.

I think that people get racist because they believe in some kind of great cause that should held power (like Homeland, Historical Background, Race, etc.). Then they consider normal to use power for this cause, even if it is against other people. Maybe it's not the same thing for getting attracted to young people. But doing pedo crimes always involve some power in the very act of it, and to some extent in the decision making that led to it.

To sum it up, imo the hate and weird attraction of those cops basically mean that they think they have, or that they should have, a legitimate power over other people (minorities, kids, etc.). Even if it's not the specific power that they got as cops that corrupted them, it is their belief in power more generally. (and as other said, the power they got as cops probably reinforced all of this, as a vicious circle).

@[email protected] 's answer is a very good and complete one !

On a side note, I would add that this is a problem that kinda divides philosophers (and people more generally). From my own experience, it is very common to discredit skepticism as a useless philosophy/reflexion, maybe because it seems to be pointless to a lot of people. But it has been used through the whole history of philosophy :

• In Ancient Greece, there were different Schools of Skepticism, as explained in other answers
• It was quite common during Renaissance, typically with Montaigne, or Descartes (though he was using a skeptic method to assert the existence of knowledge)
• To me, skepticism is one of the influences that led to the emergence of philosophies like phenomenology, as they try to describe our experiences as subjects without asserting facts about an external world.
• As i studied logic and epistemology, i discovered that skepticism has influences in those fields. For exemple, the epoche, the suspension of judgment used by skeptics, is used in modern epistemology, with theories such as Equal Weight View. They also talk a lot about limitations of language, formal logic being some slight kind of remedy to it.

So in the end, while i feel like skepticism has a really bad reputation, i also find very common to accept the idea that every truth/belief/knowledge/reflexion needs unprovable premises, which seems to me like a skeptic root. It is not often the main subject, but i frequently find signs of it around me.

I'm not an expert but i learned about this at university one or two years ago. I'm not entirely sure of what i'm saying though, so take my word carefully and feel free to correct me.

From what i recall -and i think at least in western europe, i don't know for other places-, before photography, it was quite expensive to get a portrait or a family portrait, mostly because of the time needed to pose. So it was something only nobles or rich bourgeois family could afford.

Then photography was invented. At first, it was mostly an amateur hobby : you had to be a handy(wo)man to get all the components needed, and in first times even to build your own device. There were no schools, no official degree, knowledge only passed from person to person.

So first "professional" photographers (i mean the first one to get paid) were not exactly professionals, most had no previous clients, or anything. Of course, their prices were much low than painters, so increasing number of people came to their shop. But it was for the most part "new" customers, middleclass people or families, would previously could not afford paintings.

So at first, they did not really stole painters' jobs, they rather extended access to portraits to a new part of population. Now, when it became more popular, the less rich clients of painters tend to switch to photography : it felt modern, it was a kind of trend, and it was cheaper.

At that point, some of the painter's client disappeared. But there were mostly two situations : big and renowned painters still got jobs, because noble people kind of considered photography a thing for common people. Modest painters, who had client amongst bourgeois, began to lose their jobs. I think that a part of them switched to photography at that point : i also think this is were photo editing began, because they could use their painter/drawer skills to erase or slightly modify the picture when it wasn't "dry" (don't know the specifics of photography at that time ^^').

So overall, if you compare like the XVII century and nowadays, of course painters lost their jobs. But from what i (think i) know, transition was pretty smooth, as it let time to painters to continue to paint for upper classes or to convert to photographers.

I pretty much agree with other people, not sure if the comparison with AI is perfect. But at least I think it might show that new techs mostly comes with two effect : replacing previous practices and creating new ones (or at least opening them to new people).