> It's a weakening of Kaczynski's argument to say it's about activists not caring about collateral.
Maybe, but what you say here isn't supported by the bit you quoted.
That bit actually seemed completely level headed and well written. He defined his terms (leftist) and admitted it's a sloppy term, and then he wrote something I feel is true about most political ideologues - that they care more about their arguments and winning than the correctness of the arguments or value of their opinions.
> He absolutely mixes in there insinuations that this is all by some secret design.
Again, maybe in the overall manifesto, but not there. In the quote provided he just says "Xs works for the goals of X, even if their message is 'Save the Ys'"
That's not hard to believe, it's something we all need to try to avoid in our own thinking.
> ungodly amounts of paper writing about the motives of the leftist.
:D Have you ever read what leftists themselves write? You could fill libraries just with analyses of Marx.
I think the scary thing is that Ted is very well read and could be writing for the New Yorker ... and he justifies violence.
But not because he's the only one doing so, he's just the one who decided to take it into his own hands instead of the acceptable ways to call for violence - to advocate using our military to do it, or hoping that someone 'punches' them for 'being a nazi'.
He's scary because he disproves the narrative of a barely literate, ignorant, conservative-adjacent, god-fearing, terrorist who hates us because of our freedoms, or whatever. He is us, one of the best of us at one time, and we can be vicious.
> To paraphrase 'ole ted "You see, affirmative action makes white people feel bad and mad at black people which is the real secret goal of leftists".
No. It's more like "Leftist activists push AA and other policies with no concern for the impact on the communities they're purportedly intended to help."
> Do you, or have you ever, felt mad a black person because of affirmative action?
I'm pretty sure you could find a ton of people who do if you searched for it. But even if the harm wasn't real I think the point is that activists don't care about collateral damage.
Had they all quit that would have been fine - nobody can force you to work. But they chose to not work and keep their jobs.
> The laborers who held the skills needed
So did many other people. They conspired to break the law by arranging to violate their employment contracts in a group so as to cause undue difficulty to their employer and they held public infrastructure hostage to prevent anyone else operating it.
> Reagan's actions have had a profoundly disturbing effect on the American middle class
The death of unions is a lot broader of an issue than RR killing the ATCU, and generally much deserved. Unions exist to save lives where the law isn't capable but for every plausibly relevant situation like air-traffic control or deep mining there are a hundred overreaches like trying to unionize Amazon warehouses.
As society and work got safer in general it became less important to have such an option as the right to blockade someone's property and dictate who they can hire.
This is clearly bad law. Not only is it unknowable and unenforceable, but it serves to reduce oversight if actually followed. Society is better off when we pay attention to how it runs and this type of law directly criminalizes that.
And it shows a basic misunderstanding of government, if it's paid for by your tax money it clearly involves you.
This is what the USA has over almost every other country - an acknowledgement that ultimately the people charter the government not the other way around.
> > In my personal opinion, when apple began these scans, they effectively became an agent of the state.
> [I think you mean] it's illegal in the US for private services to conduct mass scanning for CSAM and notify the government
Nearly. If the government is requiring this then it becomes improper.
Not that Apple would be breaking the law, but that the search would be by a government proxy and thus inadmissible.
imho with the FBI's past pressure on Apple it doesn't seem unlikely that this is somewhat coerced.
> I would have expected it to have been brought up by the defense in a trial and stopped as a result. That it still happens is a strong indicator that it is, in fact, not illegal.
If their lawyer doesn't feel they could win with this argument they won't waste time bringing it up. Their job is defense not legal correctness.
> Frankly, it sounds like the same nonsense "sovereign citizens" get up to.
SovCits argue about stuff like that they don't belong to the government because they spell their name in all-caps, not about actual constitutional principles.
> cis- and hetero-normative "obscenity", like an anatomy textbook
If it's heteronormative to merely show anatomy (and presumably describe mating) then I don't understand why that's worth calling out. It's no insult to anyone to say that male-female relationships are the most common and the only ones that produce children. We don't need to represent everything as equally likely to say that it's okay.
As for cis, I struggle to see how anatomy would intersect with gender-identity at all. Bodies are male or female, and may be intersex.
> graphic novel "Gender Queer" has been banned under the broad brush of "pornography" in Florida, when it's educational
This feels like a problem of having to find a category. If there was an 'unapproved medical advice' category it would be more descriptive.
As for its educational content, it recommends - not merely discusses but actively recommends - drugs and breast-binding for something that many (most?) parents do not think is a medical condition.
> nor do they describe sexual conduct in a "patently offensive" way.
In looking it up and reading it I discovered that the author said "It's been two years since it was published, why are they mad about it now?" and the answer to that is schools. The book wasn't being protested when it was available for sale, and in public libraries, only when it was placed in school libraries.
I think the 'patently offensive' element here is specifically that it's being placed in schools even though many parents don't want it and even explicitly over their objections.
> If you actually need development services, does it actually have to be an employee? Maybe you can just be open to contractors or outsourcing agencies, let them in "honestly" ...
No, they're dishonest people so we don't ever want them. There's no amount of desperation that makes hiring a scammer a good idea, they're willing to steal from and cheat you.
There's no problem with preferring not to hang out at work, there is a huge problem with being unwilling to help your employer solve a huge trust issue in the engineering team. Those engineers are 100% toxic to the business goals that pay their salaries and should be let go immediately if they truly would never dream of attending a physical meeting as you describe.
Someone who won't help you avoid fraud might as well be pushing you into it.
Makes sense. There are two broad classes of code, actual standalone projects, and handy code you don't want to rewrite at each job. The latter really fits BSD or Apache - you're trying to break down as many barriers to use as possible and you aren't concerned about receiving contributions.
Maybe, but what you say here isn't supported by the bit you quoted.
That bit actually seemed completely level headed and well written. He defined his terms (leftist) and admitted it's a sloppy term, and then he wrote something I feel is true about most political ideologues - that they care more about their arguments and winning than the correctness of the arguments or value of their opinions.
> He absolutely mixes in there insinuations that this is all by some secret design.
Again, maybe in the overall manifesto, but not there. In the quote provided he just says "Xs works for the goals of X, even if their message is 'Save the Ys'"
That's not hard to believe, it's something we all need to try to avoid in our own thinking.
> ungodly amounts of paper writing about the motives of the leftist.
:D Have you ever read what leftists themselves write? You could fill libraries just with analyses of Marx.
I think the scary thing is that Ted is very well read and could be writing for the New Yorker ... and he justifies violence.
But not because he's the only one doing so, he's just the one who decided to take it into his own hands instead of the acceptable ways to call for violence - to advocate using our military to do it, or hoping that someone 'punches' them for 'being a nazi'.
He's scary because he disproves the narrative of a barely literate, ignorant, conservative-adjacent, god-fearing, terrorist who hates us because of our freedoms, or whatever. He is us, one of the best of us at one time, and we can be vicious.