Careful, HN doesn't like bad talking of Trump for some reason. They like to pretend that the way he acts is normal and acceptable for a person in such power.
>would bother to wait in line for a physical voting booth ever again
As someone living in a state with mail-in ballots, it still boggles my mind waiting in line for physical voting is a thing. Mail-in ballots seem to be the best of all worlds. It's easy. I have time to do the research for who I want to choose. It's all backed by USPS so it's pretty damn secure- as secure as everything else we trust in the mail.
>Why do you need studies to give you permission to do something?
No one said that.
>Particularly when science is facing a crisis of reproducibility, I would not put so much emphasis on them
Err.. science is facing a crisis of reproducibility? Excuse me? If you can't reproduce something- that means you haven't proved it scientifically, thus the science is telling you that it can't tell you anything.
>It’s really no different than the religious dogma of previous centuries, where scientists act as priests, and scientific studies as scripture.
Ok now, hold up. You are saying scientific studies is the same as religious dogma....? Do you honestly need me or someone to explain to you the difference?
The counter argument would be- just because you enjoy knitting 30 minutes a day and it relaxes you, does that mean it will work the same for anyone/everyone else?
If there was a study that empirically proved knitting for 30 days made you happier, then it would be a lot easier for people to say "OK, I'll take the time to learn how to do this and do it for X amount of the day".
Given that I still see your point. No reason to be so skeptical, just try out meditation and if it works great if not oh well.
Hey the morons in /r/The_Donald can say what they want. That is what we have all determined.
However, one of the largest social media sites out there (reddit) does NOT have to allow them to congregate together. Reddit should have banned them years ago. They are actively responsible for providing a place for hate to thrive.
You can be 100% pro free-speech and still agree that no one (except the government is some form, meaning sure they can hold meetings in public places, etc) HAS to give them a platform. Anything private can and should say NO.
The theoretical argument is simple- if you ban one kind of speech, where does it end? The line can keep getting moved closer until what's not allowed is in a gray area and that's not where we want to be.
However, the practical side of this is pretty clear.. hate speech is hate speech. It's not a debate. The people who are for being racist/bigots are wrong- plain and simple. So removing their forum of speech is OK in my book.
Still even after saying that- it's never that simple.. I think collectively the US does not want to turn into what parts of even europe has in which you can literally get in trouble just for saying things. And trying to "ban" even the clearest of wrong views is one step closer to getting somewhere we don't want to be.
Hint: it's not.