Hishiryo

CEO and Marketing

Anyone in Silicon Valley, but especially Sam Altman, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates and anyone who has anything to do with Apple.

Well… Empty empty, I don’t think so; think about the whole issue of vacuum energy and the consequent virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, or the mere fact of the existence of quantum fields that permeate everything — like the field responsible for mass itself, the Higgs field.

That’s a simplification; a useful one, but a simplification nonetheless.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Well, give me the studies, arguments and independent periodistic reports that are clearly not subject to interests conflicts.

Because I have them.

Again, you all are being, blind,bManichean and naive by basically cherry-picking and looking to another side when there’s information that doesn’t support your beliefs, just to attack the US (that, let’s accept it, it’s as authoritarian as China, but in a very different way).

Again, I hate both equally, and for me would be better if both Trump and Xi Jing Ping died.

Yeah lmao

And, again, I hate US too, but I hate every government/state/party/politician equally, so well… I’m just really pesimistic, more as I live in Venezuela, that basically divinizes China, and here we can barely even exist peacefully; just now we even have an arbitrary curfew for the army to steal everything they want in my town.

About “submission to authority”, it talks by itself: you have to think what the president or leader thinks, to want what they wat and to hate what they hate, and if you dissent even just a bare minimum, you’ll be paid with physical, mental and social violence.

Removed by mod

It is the same as the United States and Silicon Valley; I won’t defend China because I hate America, just as I can’t ally with Baphomet just to kill Lucifer.

I am politically pessimistic, so I don’t believe that any good state, government or politician really exists, they are all equally disgusting and putrid, and as such, I hate each and every one of them equally.

Well, about these messages I have to agree with you, but I can’t simply agree with absolutely anything else.

Let’s see, I’m not from the United States so I don’t know their situation well (although I must say that I HATE Trump anyway), but I’m from Venezuela, which is really much, MUCH worse; Nicolás Maduro was literally a fucking dictator who killed anyone who dared to mock him (if you’ve never heard of Helicoide, I recommend looking it up), and now that they took Maduro they left us with Delcys Rodríguez, who is another fucking harpy. I really cannot understand how someone who has not experienced a true dictatorship and who has not faced offense and repression for ideological reasons can say so calmly that freedom of expression should be limited; What blissful ignorance of yours to live in a bubble like that, you make me sick (with every intention to offend :3). It really seems absurd to me how you think that “emotional harm” is a valid criterion or is in any way different from offense; No, they can apply in different areas, but epistemically and ontologically they are the same: pure subjective whim, and an ideology that the world revolves around you and your problems.

I’ll put it to you this other way:

1. Or only some speeches are prohibited (therefore falling into totalitarian arbitrariness).
2. Or all speeches are prohibited (and therefore language and existence themselves are also prohibited, in a non-metaphorical, non-figurative and non-hyperbolic, but literal sense).
3. Or no speech is prohibited, but only real and concrete actions (a defamation, a social lynching, a false denunciation, a fraud, a robbery, a coup or a murder), and, at most, imperative speeches (not a mere “hatred of X” but an explicit “X should die”).

Strict logic is the only reasonable law, and your ideology falls under the above reductio ad absurdum.

Oh, also straw-man fallacy.

​I will restate what I mentioned in a previous comment:

​Offense (or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech.

​Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.

​When LGBTQ+ people fought for their rights, when Black people did the same, or when abolitionists fought against slavery, all of these individuals were viewed as “hate groups” (in the terms of their respective eras), “violent groups,” or “dangerous groups” because they were challenging the status quo and the power structures that oppressed them.

deleted by creator

Ad hominem fallacy.

​He isn’t saying that spreading hate is something that should be done or that it is good; rather, he is merely stating that there is a huge logical, epistemological, and ontological leap between “I hate X” (whatever that X represents) and “we should kill X” or “X should die.”

​Moreover, offense ( or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech. Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.

Freedom of speech SHOULD be an ABSOLUTE and UNRESTRICTED right, even over any other right.