Pretty sure that quote is related to or inspired by Bradbury’s own short story The Pedestrian, from 1951, which was required reading in my high school english class. For me, it was one of the few reading assignments that I thoroughly enjoyed and still occasionally comes to mind.
I once worked for a short while at a place where they published everybody in the company’s monthly sales in order to embarrass the people with fewer sales, and I honestly thought that little bit was too abusive.
I guess I was naive. And I guess I’m not cut out for sales.
I’ve seen several times where somebody posts a picture saying “Look what socialism causes,” and the picture is like a tent city in modern America that was created under capitalism.
This is the problem with banning the words themselves.
Why not both?
I don’t know for 100%, but my recollection is that Trump was required to put the money in escrow in order to appeal the decision. If that’s true, then he’s already paid it, and his tying it up in court is just delaying his victim from getting it.
It’s extremely pragmatic and not at all politically convenient, which is exactly what I’d expect from Fauci.
“I committed a bunch of war crimes, and all I got was this lousy hat.” (It’s a Trump 2028 hat.)
Almost like the nonviolent resolution was made possible by violence before it…
Everything has context, but the context isn’t the thing itself. Sometimes, the context is the exact opposite of the thing.
Your claim seems to be that a nonviolent revolution is impossible if there was ever a violent attempt in the past that anybody in power remembers. If it sounds like a ridiculous idea, that’s because it is.
I don’t think this is the least bit complicated or controversial. I’m not even claiming that a nonviolent revolution is a good idea or possible in the future, only that it’s happened in the past. This is just a basic fact. I don’t think I can have a reasonable discussion with a person who rejects inconvenient facts.
At any rate, I think you’ve spurred me into doing something rather ironic in this situation. I’m just going to go ahead and block the entire lemmy.ml instance. There’s a button for it, but I haven’t tried it before, so there’s no time like the present. I just want you to know that the irony isn’t lost on me, that I’m judging others on your instance for the context of where they’re logged in from. But I suspect that anybody reasonable has already decided not to have an account over there. I expect this will save me the trouble of blocking you all individually. Adios.
The Gwangju Uprising happened in 1980. The June Democratic Struggle happened over 7 years later in 1987. Why didn’t you mention that? Is it because you knew that it would completely discredit your point? Is it because you didn’t think somebody would call your bluff and fact check you?
So, you’re calling me a liar, and aggressively, while saying… that. I’m sorry, but I am reporting and blocking you.
You asked for an example with zero violence. I gave you that example. And you barely acknowledge it, first saying there are “almost no examples,” but then go on to ignore it completely and say that “revolutions don’t occur unless violence is necessary.” If you had already made up your mind and decided to ignore any contrary evidence, you shouldn’t have asked for counter-examples.
I wasn’t even trying to argue for nonviolent revolutions, only to say that the tiniest bit of effort shows that they have occurred. At any rate, I don’t think you’re the kind of person I want to continue interacting with. So, bye. I’m finished with this particular exchange.
The entire list is counter-examples, even the ones they mentioned. I am guessing that they simply disagree with the definition given by Wikipedia. They seem to be claiming that violence prior to a revolution by somebody else who wasn’t part of the party that came into power, but which weakened the authority, is disqualifying as a nonviolent revolution.
If they don’t like Wikipedia’s definition, then they can mention that. But it’s impossible to argue against a premise that they didn’t even specify. They didn’t give substantive anything to argue against, so what would I even be arguing? Like I said, unless they state their specific problem, in my view, the entire list, even the ones they mentioned, are what you’d call counter-examples. They haven’t given a better definition of a nonviolent revolution.
If you want an example where there was no violence at all by anybody, even unrelated parties, and again, the list is only 7 entries long, just look at the June Democratic Struggle, which is the fourth in the list. Two after they stopped looking further, and I think 4 more than you looked at.
The article states what it considers a nonviolent revolution. It doesn’t mean there was zero bloodshed, but that the actual parties that were trying to take power did not use or threaten violence.
Even if you disagree with their definition or believe that they gave a bad example, I imagine that you wouldn’t find the entire list objectionable.
There are only 7 examples in the whole list.
I didn’t look any further
A very useful tactic in this specific situation.
I don’t want to say about the frequency or which way is more effective, but there have been nonviolent revolutions. Wikipedia even has a page about it. It took me only a few seconds of searching to find it.
So, the comic author is mocking people who make conclusions without actually looking at the data, and meanwhile, they seem to have written the comic making the opposite conclusion ironically without actually looking at the data, either.
It would be so nice if things were always one way or always another way, and people love to assume that their common sense and existing knowledge will be enough to make conclusions, but the comic is right in that regard. If you tell other people your conclusions but you haven’t done the research, you really do open yourself up to looking foolish… Not that it seems like most people care about that these days.
Yes, and my comment was about why the border search exception doesn’t make sense for cell phones specifically and so it should be unconstitutional for them to search cell phones specifically.
If I can go to a public monument and cause a million, or even a thousand, dollars of damage by touching something in a public place with my hand, it’s not really my fault at that point. It’s the fault of whoever made it so fragile.
From a legal perspective, everyone has constitutional rights against the authorities going on a fishing expedition and searching you.
It’s not like it’s an invasive plant or something physical that our borders would be the last line of defense. The only thing on a cell phone is data. I guarantee I can get data into the US in a myriad of ways. I can even put it on a cell phone in a way that border agents would have no chance of finding.
So, although I understand that legally, these cell phone searches have not been found unconstitutional today, I think they are obviously unconstitutional. They aren’t protecting our borders against something that has no other way in. It’s just an unreasonable search and if we’re forced to give them the unlock code, it’s a violation of our right not to self-incriminate.
The other advantage is that the more he lies, the more free firewood you can get.
I worked in software for, well, let’s say 20 years, at some elite places, too. And the one thing that I never understood was how few people ever bothered “to make sure it is correct,” as you put it, even before this new problem with AI. They didn’t even bother to make sure it was correct even when they wrote it themselves.
You don’t know how many times I’ve been sent a request to review code, and it should have only been like 20 lines of code, but instead it was page after page of irrelevant stuff, because they created the review from the wrong baseline. But they never even took a single look at it before they sent it to me.
So many people don’t write tests for their code that generally my biggest achievement at any given assignment was creating test frameworks that let them write tests using domain specific language, because it made it much easier. At a certain point, if it’s easy enough, even those people will write tests, especially if they know that I’ll be doing the review.
I honestly don’t see AI code as being all that different. People still don’t even do the minimum, but they just get exposed and embarrassed more easily.
It’s so blatantly bullshit that it even makes Wikipedia sound stupid:
Ah yes, what a great “safeguard against government overreach,” to give corporations unlimited power. You can’t overreach if you don’t really exist!