follow Patrick following
follow Patrick 2018 Sep 14, 7:53am
4,835 views 76 comments
To understand these losses in extreme isolation, the easiest case to understand is Japan, because the loss of firearms in Japan was witnessed and described. It took place in a literate society. Guns arrived in Japan around 1543 with two Portuguese adventurers who stepped ashore, pulled out a gun, and shot a duck on the wings. A Japanese nobleman happened to be there, was very impressed, bought these two guns for $10,000, and had his sword-maker imitate them. Within a decade, Japan had more guns per capita than any other country in the world, and by the year 1600 Japan had the best guns of any country in the world. And then, over the course of the next century, Japan gradually abandoned guns.What happened was that the Samurai, the warrior class in Japan, had been used to fighting by standing up in front of their armies and making a graceful speech, the other opposing Samurai made an answering graceful speech, and then they had one-on-one combat. The Samurai discovered that the peasants with their guns would shoot the Samurai while the Samurai were making their graceful speeches. So the Samurai realized that guns were a danger because they were such an equalizer. The Samurai first restricted the licensing of gun factories to a hundred factories, and then they licensed fewer factories, and then they said that only three factories could repair guns, and then they said that those three factories could make only a hundred guns a year, then ten guns a year, then three guns a year, until by the 1840s when Commodore Perry came to Japan, Japan no longer had any guns. That represents the loss of a very powerful technology.
« First « Previous Comments 37 - 76 of 76 Last »
Herdingcats saysThen why don't Trump supporters call him out on his hiring of foreign workers?Does he hire illegals?
Then why don't Trump supporters call him out on his hiring of foreign workers?
Rocketmanjoe saysIf people don't agree with it they are free not to use the serviceNope, not free in a de facto sense. See the comic above:
If people don't agree with it they are free not to use the service
What regulations would you propose for social media?
Jones got banned from Twitter for violating it's abusive behavior policy. Do you consider abusive behavior non-violent?
Jones treated the CNN guy Oliver Whatshisface... the way politicians and pundits ought to be treated by reporters generally.
See the comic above
Apparently these companies feel their policies had been violated. What is your solution? Government control? All social media? What controls should the government put on patrick.net?
The same people who didn't want Comcast charging them extra for Youtube or Facebook, are now telling us Youtube and Facebook should have the power to completely ban users and content creators.
So then what do you propose to be done? I am not hearing any solutions. How do you propose to force YouTube and Facebook to not ban users that they feel violated their policies?
I hinted at it. Enforcement of open, obvious criterion - like no CP. No calls to violence. Standard stuffAnything beyond that makes you a Publisher, not a Platform.
Does he hire illegals?Are you implying non-illegal foreign workers don't dilute the power to negotiate wages by American workers?
Does he hire illegals?
Patrick saysSee the comic aboveSo, @Patrick, do you really feel patrick.net should be regulated like a utility? Or do you not agree that patrick.net is social media?
But also, is patrick.net a monopoly, or anywhere close to it? Do you have easy alternatives to patrick.net?
Patrick saysBut also, is patrick.net a monopoly, or anywhere close to it? Do you have easy alternatives to patrick.net?Are you implying there is no alternative to Google or YouTube?Pretty sure I can watch Alex Jones whenever I want whether he's on YouTube or not.
I can install solar panels on my roof and Tesla Powerwall in my garage and cut the power line but this doesn't mean PG&E is not a fucking monopoly. And the great fuckin state of California agrees and regulates the fucking thing as a fucking monopoly it is.
please point out any instance of a political point of view that was censored on patrick.net, ever.
How countries go backwards
Comparing a stand alone website to Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube is absurd.
Comparing a stand alone website to Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube is absurd.It's like saying "So there's only Walmart Supercenters for groceries within an hour drive. But there is Ray's Pizzeria, Papa Johns, and Pizza Hut, so there is no food monopoly. "
DASKAA saysI can install solar panels on my roof and Tesla Powerwall in my garage and cut the power line but this doesn't mean PG&E is not a fucking monopoly. And the great fuckin state of California agrees and regulates the fucking thing as a fucking monopoly it is.lol-the government CREATED and enforced that monopoly. Not exactly the same thing.
Patrick.net as a Free Speech site
Aphroman saysPatrick.net as a Free Speech siteYou're still very free to give whatever opinion you want, just not free to deliberately insult the other users.No one wants to visit a site where they will be personally attacked for their honest opinion. People prefer a site where they can have a polite and friendly discussion on every possible topic. At least I do.
Like characterizing someone as either Right or Left, and using that characterization to summarily dismiss everything they say?
You may not insult the moderators, as they are also users, but I welcome friendly discussion of moderation.
Patrick saysYou may not insult the moderators, as they are also users, but I welcome friendly discussion of moderation.Good. The moderation, while a noble idea, has utterly failed in the implementation.
Comparing a grocery store to restaurants is even more absurd.
The point is to keep non-Establishment opinions locked in bespoke Echo Chambers and out of the main Public Marketplace of Ideas. Most people won't seek out an Infowars, or DailyKos, or MotherJones, or Breitbart - especially if they either can't be linked to or posts linking to them are "downgraded" from Timelines - and that's the point. The point is to prevent anti-establishment voices from having influence at the General Town Meeting. "But you can meet in the Pub across the street with your little group of friends, you're just banned from the big meeting with everybody talking about everything from LOLcats to Hurricanes. But CNN, MSNBC, Vox, and Buzzfeed are scheduled 5 minutes at the beginning of every Town Meeting"
bob2356 saysComparing a grocery store to restaurants is even more absurd.Not at all. The comparison is excellent.
Nice circular argument. Keep trying though.
The solution is clear: One is either a neutral platform that only bans illegal or Adult content according to clear rules, or one is a publisher. Publishers, however, are responsible for the content, legally.
Internet bill of rights is coming. Guaranteed.
The solution is clear: One is either a neutral platform that only bans illegal or Adult content according to clear rules
Clear to people who live on conspiracy and russian propaganda which is what is being cleaned up.
« First « Previous Comments 37 - 76 of 76 Last »