Would make sense if he withdrew small amounts from an ATM incrementally, but if he withdrew say $5k and then his web footprint went dead it draws a lot of red flags.
Although it depends who your adversary is at the end of the day.
People commonly withdraw thousands of dollars and then disappear from online banking or bank-card use, if they leave to travel for some months in e.g. sub-Saharan Africa or Andean villages where all transactions will be made in cash.
> People commonly withdraw thousands of dollars and then disappear from online banking or bank-card use
In fairness, using contactless payments is super convenient and although it leaves a data trail, the sheer convenience of being able to buy a beer without fumbling around in my pockets is great. It's the old privacy versus convenience argument. But then, here in the EU you can compartment your card use with things like Revolut, and you can even secure your card by setting a limit on how much you can spend with contactless (no affiliation with Revolut, I just enjoy their app).
Of course in an ideal world, there would be no such (transparent) data trail and you would pay for everything with Monero, over Tor lol
Was I not clear in my post above? People sometimes take out cash before traveling because cash is the only way to pay for things in certain parts of the developing world.
Sorry, I skipped that part where you meant the developing world. I'm referring to how I spend my money in the EU. Revolut has all these 'neobank' features of limiting contactless spend, creating a virtual disposable card for e-commerce purchases, and also being able to send money to others, etc.
Well, I’d be extremely surprised if Revolut kept all that juicy data for themselves. The net privacy benefit of their disposable cards is most likely negative over using a more privacy-respecting single card bank.
I had the same dirty feeling whenever I paid with my Revolut cards as I do when someone I legit want to connect with adds me on Facebook.
Because every single time the left agrees to sit down and have a conversation with “reason and logical arguments” they get met with bad-fair arguments.
In spite of this, they keep offering. As soon as they do anything except bend-over-backwards to accomodate the right, they are met with “so much for the tolerant left”. Is it any surprise that people get fed up when this is all they’re ever met with. If you can’t come to the table and behave like an adult, don’t be surprised when you get relegated to the kids table.
I am quite worried for the future of the country when Republican voters elected not one but two adherents of QAnon to the House of Representatives.
What is any sort of reasoned debate about policy going to look like when one of the participants is coming into it with a set of beliefs as divergent from reality as QAnon?
A large portion of extremists are not willing to discuss the results of the election even with other Republicans. People were calling Pence a traitor, boycotting Fox, etc.
Those people are not willing to talk to or listen to anyone who's supposedly on their side but has a different opinion. What makes you think they will listen to the "other side"?
> Others called for Vice President Mike Pence — who enraged Trump when he acknowledged that he did not have the power to unilaterally throw out electoral college votes — to be tried for treason. One Facebook post, quickly deleted, said Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should be hanged.
I understand what you're saying, but in my limited experience, it appears it isn't exactly what information is being presented so much as How it is presented. Often I see some with a differing opinion begin along the lines of: "You're an idiot Trumper, you're killing the planet!!" How about begin with a question to engage? For example: " why is it you think climate change doesn't exist? From the studies I've seen, I was convinced. " That's better right?
ratww, I didn't intend to suggest perfection from either side. But, only one side wants to censor the other for their opinion, the manner in which they convey it, or broad association with extremists by way of similar beliefs on a much narrower subset of ideas.
My example of climate change was merely a "for instance" rather than for the topic of the example to become part of the discussion.
Point being, silencing one side doesn't work if the alleged reason is their ideas are so wrong they are too dangerous to be read unless you can properly show what you claim is "right".
I never mentioned anything about censorship here, so I don't see how this applies to my reply.
What I was objecting here is the theory that people on the right has been radicalised due to the left not wanting to discuss. I'm just demonstrating that not only the left wants to speak to the extremists, but also the right itself wants (Pence and Fox News). But the extremists don't care: they're even attacking both left and right preemptively. There's zero interest from extremists to understand opposing opinions.
This theory that the left is to blame for the radicalisation of those people holds absolutely no water.
It’s really tiresome seeing the “Republicans are victims of the left“ meme over and over. You’ve controlled the government for years. You’ve mismanaged the pandemic, killing more Americans than world war 2. We’re not supposed to take the president’s words literally, unless he’s saying something that you happen to personally agree with.
And no, discussing studies doesn’t work. See the anti-vax debate. We’ve been pointing out the science on climate change and vaccines, clearly and respectfully, for _decades_ and it has not mattered.
I’ve never seen anyone directly start a persuasive argument with “you’re an idiot Trumper”. It isn’t that common. Your helpless victim attitude is showing.
Trump had every opportunity to win this election rightfully. He is not a victim and neither are you or his supporters. Stop playing one.
You seem to be requesting perfection from one side but not from the other.
To keep on the previous example: Pence and Fox News never called anyone "idiot Trumper" or anything and they are being attacked by that crowd.
About climate change: Greta Thunberg has been called all kinds of names without equivalent provocation.
And there's a lot of people willing to engage with climate change deniers in the way you're suggesting they should, but a large part of climate change deniers are not willing to accept that those people are acting in good faith. There's lot of accusations that non-deniers are paid shills and stuff like that.
Again, why does every person on one side has to be perfect, but the other side gets a pass? Even the Republicans can't control the Trump crowd.
Absolutely, and I acknowledge that: the right itself is full of completely reasonable people that is being shunned by some of the extremists.
On the other hand, the same thing should apply to the left! Just because someone on the left has not been using logical arguments and acting in bad faith, it doesn't mean the whole left is doing it. People don't get a free pass on claiming "the left caused it" or (EDIT) "the left not talking to them is the reason they have this opinion".
Wait, just so we're on the same page: by "the left caused it" I mean that I don't believe the theory that "the left is to blame for people having extremist opinions because the left doesn't want to talk to them". Not some specific event.
I also believe that blaming the whole right for anything is incorrect too, and repeatedly mentioned that some of the right are being shunned by extremists too.
I think that one possible disconnect is the issue of ‘extremism’. I don’t think we can make a black and white division between extremists and everyone else.
For example, I think things like saying ‘whiteness’ is the problem, is not particularly associated with the extremes and yet very much are part of the cause of the problem. Similarly, calling everyone on the left a snowflake or a communist, is not only the purview of extremists.
> I don’t think we can make a black and white division between extremists and everyone else.
I haven't made any black and white division between extremists and anyone else. I always said "large portion of extremists", "a large part of climate change deniers", etc.
What I'm replying to here is the multiple posts (not yours) saying that the problem is that some people on the left have been communicating in a combative/ineffective manner.
While this is true, I don't believe this is the source of the problem. And demanding perfection from one side while absolving the other is not a fair tactic. It's pure bullshit. Why must the left be flawless? In fact, it's a bit condescending to the extremists.
I don’t believe it is the only source. However the situation is a non-exclusive OR. When either side does this, they become part of the cause. The behavior is the source of the problem - not a side.
No ‘side’ can claim not to be the cause unless it can curb the behavior. The left cannot curb the right behaving unreasonably, but it might be able to curb unreason on its own side.
However this: “demanding perfection from one side while absolving the other” seems like a straw man. If this is being done, it’s clearly being done by the right and the left.
When the right say the left are causing the problem by doing this, they are correct. You are also correct to say they aren’t the only ones causing it.
However the left cannot improve the situation by pointing fingers at the right and doubling down.
The left doesn’t have to be ‘flawless’, but if it’s not better than the right, then how does it expect to improve anything?
It's not a strawman. The posts I answered virtually said that the reason extremists still hold their extreme position is due to "the left" being too combative and being unable to create arguments to debate with the extremists. Note I'm not saying "the right" to refer to them.
I'm not talking about "the right" here. The right is too varied (as is the left). I'm talking about extremists.
I pointed out that some extremists are not even willing to listen to people on the right itself. Pence and Fox News are definitely not calling people "idiot trumpsters" and are still being attacked by them.
It's not even a matter of the left trying to engage in discussion. People have screamed at me and called me "sheeple" for wearing a mask in the supermarket. How do you engage? I just left. Am I the cause of the problem for not speaking a word before or after the engagement?
The left can't improve the situation by trying to debate with people that's unwilling to debate in the first place, period.
“The left can't improve the situation by trying to debate with people that's unwilling to debate in the first place, period.“
This is true.
However the left can improve the situation by being willing to debate people who are willing to debate, and yet casual dismissals or irrelevances about whiteness and racism stop that dead.
The people who claim to be willing to debate aren't necessarily willing to debate though. Someone like a Richard Spencer is really looking to gish gallop and not debate
A significant number of people are threatened by rational critical thinking. They instill these values in their children who then they go off on raving rampages touting false patriotism. You can't make them listen. Taking away their echo chambers is the only way to cool them off.
Wait, has this actually worked before? Ever? Do you have examples? For instance, when they denied "radical Islamist groups" access to popular social media, "radical Islamist groups" just started using less popular social media that is harder to keep tabs on. "Radical Islamist groups" certainly haven't disappeared...
YES. Recently many platforms were key in deplatforming ISIS and slowing the rate of radicalization. ISIS was an internet phenomenon and when their media was pushed to less famous outlets then their outreach was weakened.
Ever since the beginning of the Internet webhosting companies have colluded to deplatform the KKK and a few other notorious white supremacist groups. This has been largely successful in curbing the outreach of the KKK in the United States. It's also why YouTube is getting a lot of criticism for embracing white supremacist groups and facilitating thier growing outreach. This is a break from long-running comm business practices.
I have an example - I remember a time before social media and internet populism. In those days these same groups existed, but were exclusively on the fringe. You didn't hear people bring up radical alt-right talking points, or sympathize with nazis, or spout outright racism (as much).
The fact of the matter is that echo chambers encourage extremism and social media is nothing but echo chambers.
Another fact of the matter is human psychology. Humans have a biological tendency to accept as truth the first opinion they hear on a topic. This is a result of evolution. If your tribe member tells you a berry is poisonous, is the first response to argue? Or to just listen. Better to be safe than sorry.
When you combine that bit of psychology with social media, you see people go online to some circle jerk, innocently at first, and then get radicalized.
Now before any counter examples get brought out, just consider that while it doesn't work this way for every person, in every context, it does work this way for some non-trivial amount of people, and that's what we're seeing. A lot of users on parler aren't domestic terrorists, but if it's even 1% who fall victim to basic human psychology, that's enough for what took place on Wednesday.
So yeah - the example is the time before social media.
The time before the printing press was invented is certainly not an example of "taking away printed materials". Both the printing press and social media exist now. You wrote lots of stuff without including the example I requested.
Also, if you didn't hear racism in USA in the 1980s you've led a very sheltered life.
I don't need them to think like me. I need them to be self-reflective enough to admit when they're wrong. You can see this inability in action when their pugnacious behavior is held up to the light and they immediately dodge with conspiracy theories about planted agitators from the other side.
You're setting yourself up for lots of disappointment, in this life. If you truly need complete strangers you haven't met to do pyschological work for you, happiness will always slip away.
From my side, you are wrong. The stances you think I have are probably inaccurate too. Your side seems to always lock us into a prison of two ideas without letting us speak for ourselves.
The extreme assumptions and generalizations don't help. There are many of us that don't agree with you but don't exactly line up with Republicans or even Trump supporters at times.
Many Trump supporters are Libertarians that do not agree full with Republican ideals completely, but it's the closest home.
That already happened though. Black people aren't allowed to have guns. That's why police shootings now have to mention "unarmed black man" because being armed is breaking the law for a black man.
You just aren't the free thinker you think you are
> Well there were pretty heavy gun regulations that were enacted under Obama.
No there weren't.
> I guess Obama did allow cartels to have guns by continuing Fast & Furious so you're half right.
You're half-right because of this one, the Obama administration circumvented federal law to allow known prohibited persons to buy guns and then let them take the guns across the border. over 1200 guns were lost to known organized crime without even getting Mexican gov't permission.
Daryl Davis has certainly proven otherwise, but I freely admit that no one should have to have the sort of patience or dedication to the cause that he's demonstrated in doing so.
> What I have come to find to be the greatest and most effective and successful weapon that we can use, known to man, to combat such adversaries as ignorance, racism, hatred, violence, is also the least expensive weapon, and the one that is the least used by Americans. That weapon is called communication. [0] [1]
Incorrect, you CAN NOT make someone listen, you can only take advantage when they are willing to do so. No one will believe anything they're not willing to. If they open the door, only then does communication work.
You can certainly encourage someone to open the door. I've found that staying calm, humble, and listening first tends to cause others to listen in return.
Research into belief perseverance shows that even when people are shown overwhelming evidence contradicting one of their beliefs that they dig in their heels and stick to the belief anyway. [1]
There's also Frank Lunz's observation that many people form opinions based solely on the emotive content of the words (Russell conjugation [2]) they're presented with, regardless of the facts. [3]
They feel that the deck is rigged against them, debating reinforces the current oppressive system, that all disagreement is illegitimate, and that anyone with power who isn't dismantling the current system is evil.
I'm not sure if you're applying that statement in mass or not, but I have seen this reasoning from both sides, straw-manning people into a belief system and calling them irrational because they disagree. I see this much more about the right from the left though.
I think if you sat down with an educated conservative and an open mind you'd have a different point of view.
If your statement was just a blanket statement about people in general, I apologize for mis-categorizing it.
The left/right dichotomy is not something that is rooted in logic or argumentation but in psychology.
The left is succeeding because it has abandoned argument in favor of the raw pursuit and exercise of power, including their incessant moralizing, which is of course how a priestly caste expresses power.
Why would they go back to debating?
They censor because its playing field they're winning on.
Why not try both approaches? We'll let Pence and Graham explain, with logic and reason, why the Electoral College selected Biden, and then we'll see how people respond.
In case it isn't clear to people who only watch briefly, the people in the video are Trump supporters, yelling at Graham for giving up on perpetuating the "stolen election" lie.
These are people who are nominally on his side, angry that he's no longer carrying water for Trump.
> It isn’t “censorship” to toss your ass off Twitter for violating their TOS
This is a misnomer. It's certainly censorship to "toss your ass off Twitter", even if somebody's arbitrary interpretation of a TOS concludes in the finding of a violation.
The concept of free speech doesn't just restrict the government via the First Amendment... it is a tradition and a founding principle (as documented in the Federalist Papers) of the United States of America, as well as a social contract.
I would argue that companies are obligated to abide by the principles of free speech, not from a legal perspective, but from a social perspective, lest they face the consequence of controversy Twitter is currently facing for banning the account of a sitting US President.
Ultimately, silencing people you disagree with is a no-win path to go down.
Agreed. If I say, “One equals two”, and you say, “Don’t ever talk to me again, you racist”, then I’m never going to understand the flaws in my thinking and you’re going to wonder why you are unable to convert people to your side.
Nobody is going to call you a racist because you claim that 1=2.
If you want to debate in good faith whether people are too quick to call others racist, maybe you should start the debate by enumerating what kind of speech have sparked those claims? Otherwise you're just being hyperbolic and increasing the political divide.
I get that people are pissed for being called racist, but if they REALLY wanna fix that, the first step is admitting that the other side might be pissed about something too.
"Nobody is going to call you a racist because you claim that 1=2."
? A woman is under arrest for trying to grab what she thought was her phone back from a black kid. It's a national story.
In 2020, getting into an argument with a Black person is 'racist' and 'criminal' if you happen to be wrong.
The woman did 1=2, in that, her actions are wrong.
But because someone is a different colour, she's being destroyed and doxxed on the MSM for the assumption of racism. (Ironically, she could easily pass as a 'person of colour' if she chose to).
This is unfortunately a problem right now in politics and it's perpetuated by the press.
That's a terrible example. She not only falsely accused, but also assaulted someone she had never seen before.
False accusation and assault should be crimes, period. If she had done the same thing to me you can be damn sure I would want her ass in jail regardless of my skin colour. Her arrest is a good thing. Actions that affect others negatively should have consequences.
Assault is a crime, yes, what she did was wrong - yes, of course - I agree with that.
But what she is being destroyed for is 'racism' - not 'assault and false accusation'.
She was being irrational (1=2) and then because of this, castigated for racism - which is a much more devious charge.
Also - it's shocking that anyone is 'shocked' over such a pedestrian encounter. Have HN readers never been in a fight before? Have folks literally never been in an argument?
This kind of stuff is 'daily' on the streets, at WallMart, etc. It's not very civil obviously, but it's really common for people to get upset over things. We have bouncers at bars for this reason. But we're adults and we move past it.
And - 'false accusation' in this manner is clearly not criminal. The woman had her phone stolen, it's reasonable for her in a hysterical state and just see the first iPhone and possibly think it's hers. Again, not nice at all, but not completely crazy.
The proper response to a hysterical person who had their phone stolen, and who maybe thinks you have it is to 'take the high ground' and calmly demonstrate your ownership. That's all. I don't expect this of a kid, but that could have happend.
That we have a 'national story' with literally Al Sharpton because someone 'grabbed someone's arm' is utterly ridiculous. The kid is 'seeking counselling' because someone 'touched him forcefully'? It's a farce. They've turned this utterly minor incident into a bad SNL parody.
Finally - I'm not implying their couldn't have been racism either, this woman could possibly just as nasty as it gets, it's impossible to tell.
And of course, the whole point of CNN putting this on the news is not that this specific moment is important, but that it could be demonstrative of 'systematic racism in the commons' and they want to make an example out of her - but lacking any possible reference to racial motivation, it's just plain stupid.
In summary - this is an example of certain parts of the media castigating individuals who may be of a certain persuasion (in this case 'White') for no reason, and I can see people getting upset over that.
The riot on capital hill however was not mostly a political movement of general malaise, rather, it was specifically about that certain people feel the election was stolen. It was mostly certainly not stolen, but they believe that because Trump told them so, and that's the primary motivation issue of the violence at this point.
No, it's nowhere near reasonable for her to do what she did. Everyone has a damn iPhone and they have very few models which all look very similar. The kid even had his own phone case which she asked him to remove. It's unreasonable to ask a stranger that just appeared in an elevator to give their phone to you.
And maybe it's a cultural thing but I've never seen a grown woman tackling a 14 year old kid to the ground like this, and if I ever do you can be sure I will call the police. Just because you've seen it often doesn't mean it should be normalised.
And no, she's not being "destroyed" by the racism accusation. But she might be destroyed if she goes to jail and gets a permanent record. And she had it coming. Actions HAVE consequences.
So I don't mean to say it's reasonable in normal circumstances, just given a little bit of hysteria after having lost an iPhone.
I guess I should have said 'undersandable' when someone is angry.
And yes - she is totally destroyed.
Do you understand the implications of your face being all over TMZ and CNN, publishing your name?
She will have death threats.
She will almost certainly lose her job if she has a normal job.
This will tar her for the rest of her life.
People commit suicide over this kind of stuff.
'Naming and shaming' for such a minor even is vindictive and terrible.
I understand CNN wanting to call attention to casual racism, but they should probably using these as 'lesson events' and probably not using real names.
They also dramatize by giving some back story 'son of a musician' and 'lady with a history of DUI' which is shameful - none of that is relevant.
Given how sensitive these things are they could be really polite about it, talk about what happened objective, talk about how the actors could have acted differently without names and colour commentary.
This is hyperbolic and disrespectful to people who actually went trough it.
Breaking the law has consequences. And the only consequence here is her being prosecuted for assault and battery and potentially going to jail. This has nothing to do with racism accusation, and is nothing compared to the torture you're suggesting.
Deplatforming isn’t censorship, it is publishers saying they find said speech to be garbage. I don’t typically stop arguing someone because I have convinced them of my view but because I guess further interaction with them on the topic is a waste of energy. I am confident in all my arguments but a lot of people are too dumb and too emotional to be worth debating. And in the group context, arguing without moderation has mostly devolved into name calling and child porn. It is an experiment often repeated. Some people want a different experience, which seems to mean they want moderation in exchange for a good forum, e.g. this web site.
Isn't deplatforming the term that gets used when certain individuals, invited to speak at a University (for example) get prevented from actually saying anything due to intentional disruption?
Would you consider this to be censorship? Does it make a difference who the speaker is?
That is censorship. Prior to this point in time only hate speech, inciteful, vulgar, things were censored. To remove speech from the view of others that is contrary to your own simply because you believe it is "garbage" is censorship. Perhaps the other side believes your speech should be censored. Let's have your comment removed because of your generalization of speech you don't like as "garbage" doesn't conform with the guidelines i just thought of right now and actually, i think your comment is "garbage". How to punish you for your opinion now? 12 hours ban? 24? Deplatformed? Where does it end? THAT is censorship.
Stop using someone else's services for your expression. Just imagine you are in Walmart or a Target or your local grocery store. You don't have a right to be there or to engage in any speech or really anything else if the manager wants you removed from private property. If you want to nationalize Twitter and Facebook be my guest but until then the owners of said private property can continue to kick people off of it. I still have yet to see one case where a person's right to free speech were somehow infringed upon.
I would put forth that you're not going to get far in this conversation if you can't acknowledge that censorship and government abridgement of free speech are not one and the same.
A company deplatforming an individual is indeed censorship, but is not government abridgement of free speech.
Before Covid I was living out in Phnom Penh. I adore Cambodia and its people who are some of the friendliest people I've ever met in the world!
The Khmer Rouge were a mixture of Marxism and Khmer nationalism. Black lives matter is a mixture of Marxism and Black nationalism...
It's very apt to have this article here. I'll always challenge Marxism because I've seem the results and what it does to people. My landlord was a child solider his mother a lovely elderly women who's only English was "hello" with a very toothless grin. But if children walked past she would go silent because when the Khmer rouge were in power if children heard you say anything which could be construed as wrong you'd be murdered.
The Khmer don't talk of post traumatic stress they call it 'broken courage'.
I've met so many people who's parents did amazing things. My ex girlfriends grandfather fled to Thailand as he was a teacher and considered educated. Her father worked the field during the Khmer rouge period afterwards who got an education where he could and put himself through medical school and became a doctor. He's one of the most incredible people I've ever met. My ex keeps a picture of him in her purse on the back in written my hero my father.
You do walk around and see old people and the thought does wonder in your mind are you a victim of genocide or a war criminal. The Khmer have forgiven though and should be an inspiration to us all.
Black lives matter terrifies me because I look back in history and I've seen what racial Marxism does!
They will argue that true communism has not been given it's fair shake, the US intervention prevented it, and that this time they will get it right. They could not package traditional communism in a palatable manner so the Marxist went back to the drawing board and packaged it with social issues. Anytime the government get's involved in social issues it becomes a mess, personal liberties get infringed on and it turns out bad.
Maybe the NRA were right.