lukzak

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Getting addicted to drugs isn't exactly an insurmountable barrier

[–] [email protected] 295 points 1 year ago (43 children)

Damn Texas. Sometimes you do manage to do something right.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark.

If we let them, especially external actors, influence our domestic policy, then they win. Look at what happened to the USA after 9/11. The terrorists won and it's proof that terrorism works. Not only do the people capitulate to the terrorists, but bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.

The alternative is just laying down and letting medeival assholes decide domestic policies of the secular world. Don't let terrorism win.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The burners are not causing problems. They're exposing a sickness that these individual people have in their minds. A healthy person doesn't try to hurt someone just because they're offended.

These sick people who would hurt someone for burning a book are the same sort that would throw acid on a woman for some bullshit medieval family honor, for example.

Better to incite them and get them arrested and perhaps even deported before they're allowed to hurt anyone. It shows you won't tolerate it in your society.

Hell, it may even encourage more moderate Muslims to move to that country if they know that the society doesn't tolerate the actions of the small, insane minority. The Muslims that believe in liberal ideals like freedom of expression are exactly the type of immigrants that make a society stronger and we should encourage them.

All this law will do is allow that unhinged mental illness to rest, in secret, before coming out in some other toxic way.

I'm not saying that the book burners are being entirely altruistic here. I wouldn't be surprised if they honestly hated all Muslims. But it is their right to express it without hurting anyone. This feels more like a "broken clock is right twice a day" sort of situation.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

How about we strive for a society where people can burn their own property without having to worry about violence?

The islamists that react violently are only proving the point of the people burning the books. Tbh if you try to hurt someone for just burning SOMETHING THEY OWN, maybe you don't deserve to live in a first world country.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In this case, couldn't an artist simply not disclose that they used AI for things like script writing or character creation? It would be on the public to figure it out, wouldn't it? It's not necessary to prove that you didn't use AI in creating the works, is it?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Burning books doesn't cause any physical harm to anyone. Someone that would hurt other people for burning books doesn't deserve to live in a first world society. Whether it be the Bible, Quran, Torah, whatever. It doesn't even matter if they're baiting people into violence. They're just proving that these individuals have those insane violent tendencies inside of them.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You keep putting yourself into the position where you GO somewhere. Sure, don't go to Israel if you're a Nazi.

Don't go to Alabama at all.

Don't go to Portland as a supporter of fascism if you don't want to be labeled as a fascist.

Don't go to a 1st world country if you want to cut off people's heads for burning books. Don't go to places if you don't support the principles they've carved out there. It's not that hard.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As for the the human rights thing, I already admitted that I jumped the gun with my reply to that. I didn't read your comment closely enough. No need to be patronizing. I don't want to strip people of human rights under any circumstances.

But your idea about separating us from them reminds me of the paradox of tolerance that is often cited around left leaning Fediverse communities. What do you think about this?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

You're still speaking about opening a door and setting a precedent. I'm saying that if someone really is motivated to strip rights from people, they don't need a precedent. They will do it if they have the power to do it. Whoever they may be, hypothetically. That shouldn't stop us from taking action when we can against groups whose sole ideology is hatred of others.

Anybody in the future can set a new precedent. Why should that limit us from challenging the problems of today?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

Your second point is the exact point that I addressed. There is no "paving the way". They will do it if they want to, regardless of what we do now.

As for your first point, that's a fair statement. Human rights are Human rights. However, im talking more about civil rights. Civil rights are taken away all the time. You lose your right in the USA to vote, to own firearms if convicted of a felony.

You lose your right to live in a certain places if convicted of sex crimes.

If you are a Nazi, you definitely still deserve the human rights. But you shouldn't have a say in how anything is decided. You shouldn't have the right to vote, because you will always vote to attack minorities for now reason. You shouldn't have the right to own a gun.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's really insane. The sponsored app even has a big fat "Install" button next to it! I've never actually clicked it, but I ALMOST click it every time.

view more: next ›