This Tolerance Paradox is something I’ve been discussing lately with family and friends, but was having a hard time articulating. Thanks for the link.
I see tons of parallels with today’s world, on both sides of the spectrum (left/right, woke/unwoke etc).
Like, I do agree that most speech should be free and that dark humour and unpopular ideas and whatnot should be allowed even if you or a portion of the population don’t like it.
However I also think you can’t just say whatever you want and hide behind that free speech protection, because that opens the door to really nasty stuff that the human species has lived through.
But where’s the line?
That comedian arrested in the UK for a tweet[0], for instance. Do I agree? No. Do I think it was an intolerant thing to say from my POV? Yes. Do I think it is in fact inciting violence and deserves arrest? No.
On the other hand, you have people preaching white supremacy and talking about inferior races. We know where that led us.
So where’s the line? Same thing applies for these “regulated” surveillances. CSAM sounds like a good reason, but the same tools can be used to limit or monitor other speeches and behaviors. (Not to get into the debate of effectiveness, since bypassing is doable if you really want to).
I don’t have an answer, and I don’t think there is a clear line to be drawn.
You can’t provide properly for your family. The drug lord has a fortune. He can put her in the top colleges, fly her around the world, buy any car she wants - when she is old enough to drive.
Don’t me a bad dad, sell your daughter to the drug lord.
A local drug lord likes your daughter. He offers to purchase her for a load of cash. He threats to kill your entire family to get her if you refuse.
You do the pragmatic thing and sell her to him so you can save the rest of your family? Doubt so.
For countries, land has the same value of a family member. You don’t sell, you don’t risk it, you don’t let anyone touch it. Or else everything else falls apart.
Right. Afghanistan had 20M+ in 2001, what’s your point?
What I’m saying is that, geopolitically, Cuba is not relevant today the US has no upside in going after it. They don’t even put out anti-American rhetoric anymore.
I don’t know. I see more comparisons with Libya or Syria or Central America in the 60s-70s-80s. Invasions and government toppling of non-central countries that draw a frown, but that nobody would actually jump in the fire to save.
Denmark? An EU, NATO country? Shit that would really be unprecedented.
What’s Cuba relevance today? Back in the Cold War they had a strategic location, close ties to the USSR etc. But that hasn’t been the case since the other Castro died.
Today Cuba is irrelevant. I don’t even know the name on the Cuban president, they are not in the news, produce nothing, and threats nobody.
In International Relations the most dominant theory is called “Realism”[0], which basically says that States will be self-interested and cooperation happens when both sides gain from it, but also factors in each side’s powers, both military and soft. But in the end it’s RATIONAL actors.
Like having the Nuke is great because nobody is crazy enough to mess with you because you can nuke them, but also you will get nuked. Mutual Assured Destruction and whatnot.
I keep hearing people arguing that Trump is rational and making moves “because he can”. And the US absolutely can do pretty much whatever it wants because of it’s position in the globe. Where’s the limit though? What line crossed would make the world actually turn against the US?
To be honest I have a really hard time accepting that his actions are chess moves. The Venezuela thing is borderline crazy but the US has done it before multiple times.
The Greenland stuff.. THAT would be nuts. That would in fact show he’s not rational and his people can’t hold him back anymore.
Or maybe I eat my words and this is more like the tariffs thing, where he barks and growls but in the end is a bully tactic to get others to do what he wants. Because that has in fact worked somewhat well.
> Predisposition to Non-Interventionism — In the Declaration of Independence, America’s founders laid down a clear preference for non-interventionism in the affairs of other nations and made clear the basis: just as all human beings possess God-given equal natural rights, all nations are entitled by “the laws of nature and nature’s God” to a “separate and equal station” with respect to one another. For a country whose interests are as numerous and diverse as ours, rigid adherence to non-interventionism is not possible. Yet this predisposition should set a high bar for what constitutes a justified intervention.
I envy / admire that kind of persistence. But I think it just makes it clear this is about the money and not the company, product, problem, space, or users.
Recently I spoke to a recently funded, first-time founder. They worked less than 2yrs in each of their 5-6 jobs, between summer internships, a VC fund, and investment bank, etc. They told me they started looking at different industries and zeroed in in this particular space, and wanted to build something there because “there was a lot of opportunity”.
They never worked in that space before and had no experience in it. They mapped it out as a “tough problem” in B2B that could potentially earn a lot.
Two non-tech founders, zero customers, $2M in funding.
This story and this post both kind of have that “I’m in it for the cash” vibe with zero interest in the problem itself. I couldn’t do it myself.
Look into Ménière’s disease . I got diagnosed recently and those are all triggers for it. When undergoing episodes I also have vertigo. There’s medication for controlling the bigger symptoms.