Some of these people are certainly not saying kind things, and are saying things that I object to. That being said, objectionable speech is the only kind of speech that needs robust legal protection. A democratic society cannot endure under a regime that can, at the discretion of any given officer, decide you have said something objectionable and are now subject to the law.
The UK already arrests more than 1,000 a month people for online "hate speech". Higher than the official numbers for China, whatever those are worth. They'll probably reach the unofficial, real number soon enough.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...
Another step towards the Redditification of hackernews. This is the exact opposite kind of functionality pages like HN need, we need ways to get people to engage with others' ideas more substantively rather than literally put someone on the "bad guy I won't talk to list".
Nation-states sponsored hackers make up a huge amount of known targeted intrusion groups. This is not some random company tilting at windmills, these are real threats that hit American and American-aligned companies daily.
>It's easy to see this reflected in nature in the real world. All animals and life seem to be aware and accommodating of each other, but humans are cut out from that communication.
This just seems like noble savaging birds and rabbits and deer. None of these creatures have any communication with each other, and while they may be more aware of each other's presence than a 'go hiking every once in a while' person, someone who actually spends a good amount of time in the woods, such as a hunter or birdwatcher, probably has a pretty good sense of them. The Disco Elysium quote just reads like fairly common environmentalist misanthropy, which I suppose isn't surprising considering the creators.
In education, the effects of striving for equity in the US have amounted to a ridiculous level of Harrison Bergeroning within the public school system, which is partially responsible for the collapse in trust in schools.
>Democracy" in these discussions increasingly just means the 21st-century bureaucratic status quo.
It is for this reason that so many young people, left and right, are latching onto non or even anti-democratic political ideologies. The systems themselves have become the highest good as opposed to what they were originally designed for. Due process no longer means a swift and fair trial, it means endless shifting paperwork and appeals that make our judiciary collapse on itself. Building anything is no longer about the funds and means to build it but about the willpower to trudge through 5+ layers of approval from councils and faceless agencies. All the while, elite overproduction has created a whole class of "expert" who cannot understand the world 3 inches from their face but are supposed to be trusted at all times to make the best decision on our behalf.
The idea that the average person in America commits even one felony a day is so ridiculous it falls flat on its face after being spoken. How can you even say something like that without feeling embarrassed for believing it?
Are you going to address the part where I pointed out that zoos ensured the survival of multiple species that were on the verge of extinction in the wild? None of that could have happened without the ticket sales.
From my first link: "Individuals experiencing homelessness are frequently arrested for minor crimes, like trespassing and shoplifting, that directly result from their housing and economic status. Like most governmental entities, we have limited resources and have a fiduciary duty to taxpayers to use precious resources in the most efficient way possible. With that in mind, we will concentrate our resources on violent crime and threats to public safety."
The explicit effect on policy communicated by this section is, 'My office will not pursue property crime'.
From the second link: "The council appropriated funds for 1,809 sworn officer positions, compared to 1,959 sworn officer positions approved in last year’s budget—a reduction of 7.7 percent. The number of civilian positions (617) and cadet positions (117) remains largely unchanged from last year.
The council also zeroed out funding for three cadet classes." This is right at the beginning of the link and follows exactly with what I said in my comment about them reducing headcount and cancelling cadet classes. You cannot have a cadet class with zero funding.
Not only are zoos wonderful ways for those who cannot afford a globe trotting safari to experience some of the wonders of nature close to home, they conduct hugely important preservation research and undergo essential conservation work. If not for zoos, it's likely that most, if not all, of the Panamanian golden frog, and many other amphibians in Central America would have been wiped out a few years ago by the Chytrid fungus.[1] This is just the first example I could think of, but zoos are an essential part of our exploration of nature, as well as our stewardship over it.
Again, why bother to arrest someone if the rest of the system is just going to let them out? In Austin, your leadership decided that it was fine for you to be robbed, because they pursued a policy of not prosecuting property theft. [1] In addition, the Austin city council cancelled three classes of cadets for the APD while cutting the number of approved officers. In one of the fastest growing cities in America, they decided to end the new officer pipeline, ensuring that your PD will have fewer officers to serve the growing population. [2]
What point is there to doing anything if the officers know that the DA won't press charges or that the system will just let them out in a few hours on no-cash bail? 1/3 of all (reported) shoplifting incidents in NYC happen because the justice system there cannot hold ~300 people that are responsible for that huge chunk of stealing. [1]
Germany and the UK seem to be the worst offenders in regards to this, but that may just be selection bias on what gets into English language media. I can pull more articles if you're actually interested.
Some of these people are certainly not saying kind things, and are saying things that I object to. That being said, objectionable speech is the only kind of speech that needs robust legal protection. A democratic society cannot endure under a regime that can, at the discretion of any given officer, decide you have said something objectionable and are now subject to the law.