Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

That’s true. It also doesn’t invalidate it if I do waste it though. OK, bye

Removed by mod

No, it’s another distinction. Three different things. Something legal can be moral or not. Something made law can be legal or not. For example, if it’s forced in some way so that formally you couldn’t prevent it becoming law, but it’s still illegal, it’s still illegal.

Which is, other than copyright except for protecting the fact of authorship, why all censorship and surveillance is illegal, and, say, why Armenia legally includes Van, Erzurum, Nakhijevan etc, and the fact that Wilson’s mediation and French mandate have been buried by force just means that Cilicia and Melitene are as well.

Restoring law and order takes effort, though.

Removed by mod

You are making a good example of a person who maybe thinks they can argue in good faith but very clearly doesn’t, with emotional pressure and such.

Isn’t it Kommentärsektion? Not a German, so just asking

Removed by mod

Well, this comment of yours doesn’t look like a good faith argument.

What I meant is that it takes two sides for one. And when two people are ready to argue in good faith, one may downgrade the level of contention from “argue” to “discuss” without any loss.

(For me and my sister it would still be “argue”, but we are just rude to each other.)

Removed by mod

They meant backdoors hidden in plain sight, so making it readable, but (EDIT: seemingly) innocent. People do that.

Removed by mod

It’s possible and not so hard, just too boring for people to do automatically (EDIT: I meant - as part of usual work), and also bureaucrats have a very different MO, one that you need a commercial company infected by that culture for.

Also governments steal money. It’s obvious they do. Both in legal ways, when some secretary has salary disproportional to the work they are doing and the need for it at all, and in illegal ones (just for the fun of it).

It’s about power and dealing with people of their culture.

The state is interested in less dependence from big corps, but its officials are interested in more dependence, because that means huge contracts with little transparency and lots of time to hide things that don’t look nice.

That would be try to attract people outside of social media, not try to divert them inside social media where you’ll waste energy

it necessarily widens the debate-space from an unopposed confident statement to a dialogue that the onlooker can take into consideration while making their own decision.

That part would be right if we weren’t talking about social media, which are designed to neuter this effect.

So who debates in good faith and how often?