Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hairyloon

  1. Ditch AOL. Sorry, that advice is generally about 10-20 years late...
  2. Those laws apply across all forms of media. Of course I can, especially if they do. And if they are simply a profit making business then that is entirely their right to do, but if the public have a significant interest in the activities of the company, then it becomes less clear.
  3. Yeah, pretty much a different thing that though. Only a properly full on authoritarian regime would even consider such a step and the internet would rebel: we cannot allow state regulation of social media any more than for any other media, but social media platforms do need to be accountable and be seen to be accountable. It does not necessarily matter to whom they are accountable as long as everybody concerned knows who that is: if users choose to engage on a platform that is run as a fascist dictatorship, then they ought to be allowed to, but it ought to be clear that that is what it is, in order that they can make that choice...
  4. Well of course, but that was not what I meant. Would Trump have won his election without Twitter? Would Brexit? Would it be proper for Twitter to interfere in the free passage of the Twitterings from one side of a political debate? Do we know that they didn't? I think the answer to all of those is no...
  5. I was wondering the other day about the accountability of social media: most, if not all of these hosts are accountable only unto themselves and their shareholders where appropriate. It is good that they are doing the campaign: Twitter has become a big enough institution that it ought to be properly accountable to the wider public. The same is true of any social media platform with a significant following.
  6. Somebody had defined it thusly: I was rejecting that definition. I am not making sense of Dutch's posts here. He is welcome to try to clarify.
  7. Meeting force with force is not suppression.
  8. If I might invite you to consider the "Brexit" thread, where you can observe the resident Remaniacs tolerating the Brexiteers. ---------- Post added 31-08-2017 at 09:46 ---------- Racism? I don't know if it was or not. I move that we strike "racism" from the definition. The dictionary had it as "often", which makes it an optional extra and that just adds confusion. Yes, well "left" as in "left behind" is on a completely different axis to "left" as in "left field". They are confusing terms in politics and I'd really rather they were not used.
  9. As far as I can tell, we are just discussing physics. If OP participates or not, it doesn't really matter. I won't ask if he's been suspended... ---------- Post added 30-08-2017 at 20:32 ---------- Physics predicts that it is something to do with the Higgs Boson.
  10. I cannot help wondering if people are being overly cautious about the inside of a hard drive: it is quite simple in there really. Immensely high precision, but I think that the real precision is in the fine control. If I was looking at a prospective £500 bill, I'd get some old hard drives and experiment. In fact, I might just do it anyway... has that chap with the tower sold it yet?
  11. I don't believe you can. If the balance of evidence is close then you have a choice, and if the evidence points to something you don't want to believe, then you can choose to ignore evidence (and sometimes that choice is subconscious). Prove me wrong and choose to believe that the Earth is flat. You might say that you believe it, but really you know that it is not true. ---------- Post added 30-08-2017 at 19:33 ---------- In order to have respect for democracy you must first have a democracy worthy of respect.
  12. It presents a false dichotomy: suppress intolerance or ignore it. The proper answer is to eliminate the environment in which it can prosper.
  13. Mainly laziness. It is a fair point: you must tolerate it insofar as you cannot suppress it through force, only through persuasion.
  14. You behave. I was clearly referring to the muddied waters.
  15. No, I don't think so. Mostly it is just misunderstandings. How do you define it?
  16. Well it would be if we agreed on the definition. Are we happy with it being "a regime that suppresses all criticism"?
  17. I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that we should stop moaning about the so called "war on the disabled" and accept that it is actually a war on the disabled: there are internationally agreed rules for war. Once we accept that, we can ask for a cease fire, and maybe the UN can broker a peace treaty...
  18. That depends upon how you oppose it: if you seek them out for a lynchin', then that would be an extreme position. No, those are Nazis. Possibly fascists as well...
  19. No, extremes are inevitable: there is no point opposing their existence we need them to mark the end points of the scale. We just need to accept that they exist, monitor them and ensure they don't flourish.
  20. Sorry, I'm not making sense of that. Can you clarify?
  21. There is nothing extreme about being anti-fascist, but I understand the Antifascists are an extremist group.
  22. Yes, and I agree that that was (at least for the most part) probably justified.
  23. There is no question that The Nazis were fascists, but my point is that they are different concepts: not all national socialists are fascists and not all fascists are national socialists.
  24. I wouldn't. If you'd read and understood the first post, then you would probably realise that.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.