The discrimination question is a valid concern. My general approach there is to have strong legislation that puts the onus on companies etc to prove non-discrimination, and leave it there. Trying to legislate outcomes is counter-productive, there are other ideals that are more fundamental than group non-discrimination. We are human beings before we are members of this or that group. Alas Americans, especially younger ones, tend not to see things this way any more!

But for this question of “emotional harm” (which is clearly what you’re talking about), I think it’s more complex than it looks. That somebody might be “hurt” by some non-physical “violence” is a subjective reality that we created collectively. It can therefore be uncreated collectively, if we so desire. I think that would be the better path to take.

Do I sound like a billionaire parasite to you?

No, you sound like an ignorant decadent American college student.

Your argument for not bothering to get off your ass and vote in a US election is “Palestine”? America deserves what it gets.

This leans heavily on two very modern, and US-centric, ideas:

• to insult a group is the worst possible form of speech infringement
• that non-physical abuse can constitute “cruelty” (you didn’t use the word “harm” but it’s right there)

Personally I dispute these premises. I think it would be better if we stuck to something close to free-speech absolutism: easier to police; no perverse incentives to victimhood; resilience is an underrated virtue, etc.

Technically I belong to one of your “marginalized groups” but I don’t see myself as a victim. My answer to insults is usually to roll my eyes rather than to break down in tears and call for Daddy to step in.

Anyway, I think this is really about the cultural zeitgeist. My ideas are going out of fashion and yours are coming into fashion. Better hope this experiment goes well.

No, the onus is first on you first to explain why “we don’t exist in a democratic society” and above all what is your brilliant plan for making things better. If all you can do is whine about why it’s all useless while you undermine the system by opting out of it, then frankly I’m not interested in anything you have to say.

This is just ignorance and whiny entitlement. Your “fake anti-democratic spectacle” is the hard-won achievement of generations of people who came before you. Boring liberal representative democracy is the exception in world history. Most people in the world have never had the opportunity that you have to influence your government. Not good enough for you? Well then get off your ass and do something to make it better. The very least you can do is vote, because out of two candidates, one is always better than another. If you can’t be bothered to do even that, then I for one don’t care what you have to say about politics.

The question was not about Gaza.

I’m offended, very offended actually, when Muslims (and not only) suggest that some brutally murdered cartoonists had it coming because of their “disrespect”. At least as offended as you could possibly be offended by some picture. Your religion needs reform. It needs to learn tolerance.

You mean, as already happens in Australia and Belgium and maybe a few other places.

Seems fair to me. Democracy relies on participation. To not vote is effectively to vote against democracy. Fair enough, but that’s a dangerous road to go down. I think there should be a small price to pay for it.

They should shut up about politics. Not voting is literally a declaration that you don’t care who governs you. Voting is what gives you the right to complain about the government. If you didn’t vote, shut up.

Completely agree.

This view is ostensibly reasonable (I’ve been tempted by it myself). The problem is the slippery slope. As soon as someone declares, “I’m offended so pleased don’t say that”, you begin to get de-facto limits about what (perfectly legal) things may be said. In the case of religious offense it’s doubly dangerous because religion always gets a free pass when it comes to offense.

Next thing you know, only a few very brave people are willing to say whatever (perfectly legal) thing has been established as verboten. And then they become easy pickings for extremists. This is exactly what has happened with innocuous, legal, Mohammed cartoons, among other things. It’s called the assassin’s veto and personally I find it much more offensive than any cartoon.

The price of living in a free society is being ready to accept other people’s speech. In the West we had an Enlightenment, so blasphemy is not against the law. Christians would indeed find a picture of “Jesus fucking Peter in the ass” offensive, but they will sigh and move on. Same for all the other world religions.

Only your religion treats offense as a justification for extreme violence. You need to think carefully about that fact.

Solved problem. It’s 42. Next.

for terminal tabs and splits. Only recently did I realize that tmux is the better option, even for local use

Reasoning?

Unfortunately it’s more complex than that, because of the issue of the rendering engine. If Firefox-based browsers disappear, the W3C (which controls web standards, including questions of privacy) will be de-facto controlled by a cabal of corporations. The last voice that cares even slightly about our privacy will be gone.

Opt-out telemetry is bad, overpaid executives is bad. The alternative is worse.