FOSTA Would Be a Disaster for Online Communities | Electronic Frontier Foundation Frankenstein Bill Combines the Worst of SESTA and FOSTA. Tell Your Representative to Reject New Version of H.R. 1865. The House of Representatives is about to vote on a bill that would force online platforms to censor their users. The Allow States and VicCommentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Hope Trev's servers are in Canada.
Stoopid policy. Lawmakers show just how clueless they are, every time they try to regulate the unregulatable.
Hope Trev's servers are in Canada.
With the USA successfully persecuting people beyond our shores for breaking our laws then Trevor is not at all beyond the reach of our avaricious surveillance and prosecution agencies.
No one is safe.
I believe CKA is hosted in Vancouver.
Stoopid policy. Lawmakers show just how clueless they are, every time they try to regulate the unregulatable.
It never ceases to amaze me when people can't tell that their liberties are being removed.
I believe CKA is hosted in Vancouver.
Stoopid policy. Lawmakers show just how clueless they are, every time they try to regulate the unregulatable.
It never ceases to amaze me when people can't tell that their liberties are being removed.
See, they start by taking away your guns and then you really don't have much to say about it when they come after everything else.
I believe CKA is hosted in Vancouver.
Stoopid policy. Lawmakers show just how clueless they are, every time they try to regulate the unregulatable.
It never ceases to amaze me when people can't tell that their liberties are being removed.
See, they start by taking away your guns and then you really don't have much to say about it when they come after everything else.
Last time I checked the ones worried about guns being taken away are taking away your actual liberties.
Last time I checked the ones worried about guns being taken away are taking away your actual liberties.
Yeah, I gave up a fucking knee so I could take away your liberties.
I believe CKA is hosted in Vancouver.
Stoopid policy. Lawmakers show just how clueless they are, every time they try to regulate the unregulatable.
It never ceases to amaze me when people can't tell that their liberties are being removed.
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I've been thinking about a certain mathematical relationship Ive noticed with sociological implications. SAFETY = CONTROL. And control, almost by definition, means curtailment of liberties. "We just want to make the children safe"--so we'll establish perimeters around schools, make them more like prisons. "We just want the roads to be safe"--so we'll charge tolls, increase enforcement, reduce speed. When we go to war, it is no longer to protect the honour of the sovereign, but because we must be made safe, or some other group must be made safe. Now whenever I hear someone say "Safety is our first priority", I hear "Control is our first priority.
Mind you I am reading MIchel Foucualt's "Discipline and Punish" right now, that may be an influence. He argues that when the state is invested in protecting the life of the population, when the stakes are life itself, anything can be justified.
Not that I'm taking sides here, I'm just asking this question - is someone's right to own a particular piece of property greater than the rights of thousands of others not to be killed, over the course of an average American year, by criminals and lunatics in possession of that same piece of property? Does the right to own a firearm always defeat the right to life of those who have those weapons used on them?
If the answer is yes then justify it.
Last time I checked the ones worried about guns being taken away are taking away your actual liberties.
Yeah, I gave up a fucking knee so I could take away your liberties.
I wasn't aware you're a congressman.
I think, not 100% sure.
Maybe. Some throwaway line about safety vs. liberty from Benjamin Franklin, who had no idea at all that rapid-fire weapons would be made widely available two hundred years later to an increasingly deranged general public, who manage to sink to new lows of absolutely atrocious behaviour with every passing year, might not be the best paradigm to build an entire society around.
Not that I'm taking sides here, I'm just asking this question - is someone's right to own a particular piece of property greater than the rights of thousands of others not to be killed, over the course of an average American year, by criminals and lunatics in possession of that same piece of property? Does the right to own a firearm always defeat the right to life of those who have those weapons used on them?
If the answer is yes then justify it.
They only think they have that right. An American can't own a nuclear bomb, so they don't really have the rights to bear arms. They have the right to weapons that threaten each other, but not the right to arms that threaten the state.
Anyways I wasn't talking about gun control, I was talking about North Vancouver who have lowered the fucking speed limit yet again, and you can't go a block without hitting a speedbump. These are the criticial issues, not gun fucking control in Jesusland.
I believe CKA is hosted in Vancouver.
Stoopid policy. Lawmakers show just how clueless they are, every time they try to regulate the unregulatable.
It never ceases to amaze me when people can't tell that their liberties are being removed.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken
...and then take away their freedoms.