Yup. This isn't news. This site has a hateful obsession with all things crypto. I think it's driven by a mixture of frustration at the irrationality of markets and bitterness about missing the boat.
Yeah, and McDonald's is one of the most popular restaurants. Doesn't say much about the quality of restaurants in general. There's a lot of a wildly good, life-changing fiction out there.
Nazism = totalitarian fascist state plus political nationalism. Fascist Italy and Spain weren't nazist for example, while Germany was and Russia today is.
Informally that specific flavor of the Russian Nazi ideology is called "rashism".
I don't know if trying to brand what is happening in Russia today as Nazism is useful. It seems to me that trying to define Nazism while ignoring the cult of Hitler is fruitless.
Even during WW2 the closest clone-regimes of Nazi Germany (I'm thinking of maybe the Ustaše led Nezavisna Država Hrvatska) are generally classed as facist, [ultra]nationalist, racist and expansionist but not Nazi despite their similarities[1] - because the party itself wasn't called the Nazi party.
Pretty sure Mussolini was a political nationalist type of guy, as was the movement he founded. I mean his whole schtick was making the Mediterranean an Italian sea, the way it was in days of Rome.
The Francoist regime was generally much more oppressive towards internal opposition groups than modern Russia. And as fucked up as the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the number of civilian casualties there is unlikely to ever reach the number of people the Italians killed in Ethiopia (especially if we look at the proportion of total population). But I guess since they were the wrong skin color we can divide the number by 10 or so?
I'm a Russian, grew up in USSR and like for many others in USSR members of my family fought, died, got decorated fighting German Nazi in WWII. So I wonder what kind of disrespect you mean.
>I know American use the term extremely casually like it meant nothing.
Do you think genocide and ethnic cleansing that the Russia Nazism conducts now in Ukraine is "nothing"?
It’s not disrespectful to Russia. It’s disrespectful to the actual victims of Nazism, the ideology of the NSDAP. Nazi is not a placeholder nor a meaningless adjective.
As i said i have members of the family who actually died in that fight, and i don't see anything disrespectful toward them in calling a nazist regime for what it is.
If you think Putin regime is nazist I regret having to inform you that said family members might have fought against nazism but did fail to explain to you what it was.
just out of curiosity, if we take a very simple, very narrow and in my view obvious case, and i'm just wondering what do you see there. This is a video of Rogozin, the Putin's favorite who is the CEO of the cornerstone of Russian nationalistic pride - Roskosmos - and who is one of the most prominent political voices in the today's Russia, and what i see in this video is him leading a Nazi salute and the end of his Nazi speech at the Russian Nazi march in Moscow (the specific phrase they all give Nazi salute to is "Glory to Russia!"). So what do you see here?
Once again and people can downvote as much as they want nazism is the ideology of the nazi party of Germany. Its main characteristic are belief in the existence of a hierarchy of races dividing humanity, the superiority of the Arian race, deep antisemetism, the legitimacy of eugenics as a mean of society improvement, the legitimacy of implementing fascism and subvert the state in order to implement these racist policies, pangermanism and profound anti-Christianity.
As repugnant as it is, Russian ultranationalism is not nazism and Rogozin is not making a nazi salute. As much as you wish it to be, nazi is not a generic world.
i think you're disingenuous here. You'd not make that salute in a public place, in a company meeting or, God forbid, in a synagogue because everybody knows that it is a nazi salute and anybody doing it would do it only as a nazi salute. There is no other meaning conveyed by that salute.
This is a war carried out against a neighboring country for territorial and security reasons. It's wrong for all the reasons aggressive wars are always wrong, but I don't see it as genocidal in the "now we kill all the Ukrainians" way. There certainly have been genocidal policies by Russians against Ukraine in the past, but I don't see it here.
The war declaration by Putin clearly contains call for genocide and ethnic cleansing and for destruction of Ukrainian ethnical and political identity. And that is what they've been doing there. And if i you watch Russian state TV you'll see that they call for and celebrate destruction of "Ukraininess", cancelation of Ukrainian language in schools and celebratory reporting that there will be only Russian, they celebrate and call for killing of "nationalists" (which de-facto, according to their words and actions, means Ukrainians who refuse to accept Russian identity).
> "now we kill all the Ukrainians"
The goal declared and constantly repeated on the TV is no more Ukraine, no more Ukrainians. As Putin said they are Russians, and the ones who resist are to be destroyed. To that goal they have already killed ~50000 in Mariupol (10% of its pre-war population or 30% of those un-evacuated), ~30000 of armed forces, hard to count the killed in all the smaller cities/towns though one can guess seeing the total destruction there similar to Mariupol, and 13M displaced by the bombings. And that just for the 4 months in the country of only 40M.
>for territorial
they do intentionally clean the territory off Ukrainians (all those displaced and killed with the rest having their "Ukraininess" suppressed by the terror regime enforced there by the Russian SS "Russian Guard") and establish there "Russian world" - classical genocide and ethnical cleansing.
>and security reasons
that is pretext. Pure propaganda BS. All those biological weapons (able at DNA level target Russians while staying safe for Ukrainians) carrying birds which Ukraine was making in the Pentagon laboratories, or Ukraine planning to attack Mother Russia on March 7.
To expand on this and compare to WW2 history, Germany invaded both Poland and France, but the rhetoric around both was very different.
For Poland, there is the Obersalzberg Speech[1], where he said in part:
Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter – with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It's a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me. I have issued the command – and I'll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad – that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formation in readiness – for the present only in the East – with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?
(The irony of the final sentence on this very discussion about the annihilation of the Armenians is not lost on me!)
Compare that to Hitler's speech about the conquest of France:
The German Army does not come as an enemy of the French people nor of its soldiers, nor does it intend to govern these territories. It has a single aim-to repel together with its allies any landing attempt by the Anglo-American forces.
Marshal Petain and his government are entirely free and are in the position to fulfill their duty as in the past. From now on nothing stands in the way of realization of their requests, made earlier, to come to Versailles to govern France from there.
The German forces have been ordered to see to it that the French people are inconvenienced as little as possible.[2]
The difference is very clear! And the French speech was made after the Poland one.
Which is more like Putain's denial of the right of Ukraine to be a country?
Already long before the Ukraine crisis, at an April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Vladimir Putin reportedly claimed that “Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? A part of its territory is [in] Eastern Europe, but a[nother] part, a considerable one, was a gift from us!” In his March 18, 2014 speech marking the annexation of Crimea, Putin declared that Russians and Ukrainians “are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus’ is our common source and we cannot live without each other.” Since then, Putin has repeated similar claims on many occasions. As recently as February 2020, he once again stated in an interview that Ukrainians and Russians “are one and the same people”, and he insinuated that Ukrainian national identity had emerged as a product of foreign interference. Similarly, Russia’s then-Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev told a perplexed apparatchik in April 2016 that there has been “no state” in Ukraine, neither before nor after the 2014 crisis.[3]
My thought was it was gonna be about how their corporate-speak was cult-like with terms like "Googley" and "Googler" and "Noogler" but I figured that wouldn't really be worth an article.
>A government that does not respect the bodily autonomy of women isn't going to respect privacy for too long if it enables the former.
For the record, I don't have a problem with abortion. Obviously I think it should be a last resort, but the impression I get is that most people who get abortions view it that way too.
That said, framing the debate around abortion purely as a question of bodily autonomy always seemed to be a very dishonest way of engaging with the debate. The issue at stake for most people(again, I don't care!) who oppose abortion is not that women are getting a medical procedure done to themselves, but that, in their view, a 2nd and entirely different person is killed as the result of this procedure.
But, many people who bring up the slogans of bodily autonomy already know this. By ignoring the core debate and taking this alternate tack, they get to:
1.) Smear their opponents' position as purely misogynist and obfuscate the core of the debate, and
2.) Signal their own loyalty to their political tribe, by demonstrating their unwillingness to even engage with the "other side."
The real question at the center of abortion rights legislation is not "should women be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies," it's "at what point does a fetus become a person, entitled to the same legal protections that other people have."
The inverse of this question is actually very interesting:
"What is it that makes a fetus NOT a person?" Maybe it's the lack of consciousnessness/low brain activity? Then, should we be allowed to kill braindead and comatose people arbitrarily? And anyway, we don't even know what consciousness is to begin with.
Or maybe, they just don't look like people, so we don't have to treat them that way? Well, that opens up a pretty ugly can of worms.
Or maybe it's the fact that the fetus is completely physically dependent on the mother's body? That's an interesting proposition, but then again, so is every baby until just days before it leaves the womb, and almost nobody is arguing the morality of ultra-late-stage abortions.
So you immediately end up with all these (admittedly) edge-cases that demonstrate some of the moral and legislative complexity of this issue, not to mention its entanglement with the federal-state-local American legal system, which is what Roe v. Wade really addresses to begin with. I'm not doing this as some kind of "gotcha!" or takedown of the whole concept of abortion. Just asking that on this forum we don't trick ourselves into believing the sound-bite version of things.
Yet again, I don't really care either way whether people get abortions or not. In general it seems like something that's impossible to legislate out of existence anyway. But I always fail to see how this is a simple question of women's bodies and evil government overreach.
The US courts have already ruled that you cannot coerce someone to donate bone marrow in order to save a life, on the basis of bodily autonomy. The contention is that pregnancy is a similar case and the pregnant woman is withdrawing her consent to allow the foetus to depend on her body.
I wouldn't call these two scenarios equatable though because in one instance a person is compelled to do something they have nothing to do with, whereas on the other hand they're performing a (very interesting) biological function. I've also heard an argument about implied contract, when you perform the function to create the dependency voluntarily and create it, you're committing to the dependency. It's somewhat compelling, but my point only is that these two situations don't match up fundamentally.
I agree, also I think that argument justifies the mother somehow withdrawing the supply of life support to the foetus but not forcible eviction. We don't allow a property owner to open the door, shoot a squatter and drag out the body. I was only providing the argument as made by pro-lifers.
Personally I'm a Brit and I'm satisfied with the consensus here. I'm simply not willing to support coercing women to forcibly carry babies to term against their will, even if the foetus does have a right to life. Even accepting the pro-life argument, the resulting savage life ruining oppression of vulnerable women necessary to actively enforce that view is utterly abhorrent to me. It's a hypothetical, but even if I was vehemently pro-life I still like to think I wouldn't support such policies.
>The real question at the center of abortion rights legislation is "at what point does a fetus become a person
I think this is disproven by the fact that even extreme pro-life advocates generally carve out exceptions in case of rape or incest, which ought to be irrelevant if the personhood of the child was the factor that is actually in question.
This debate doesn't add much depth because killing is not automatically murder, and there are plenty of cases in which killing is justified to preserve autonomy, including of course of animals most of which have more claim to autonomy or protection from harm themselves than an early stage fetus.
>"Then, should we be allowed to kill braindead and comatose people arbitrarily"
Probably not arbitrarily, but if its in the interest of a person who still has a working brain then I would say it's hard to find a coherent argument to not answer that question with yes.
I tend to agree with your first sentence, it is a hypocritical inconsistency. Either you believe the fetus is a distinct person, or you don't. A carve out allowing for what you say is murder for a crime the "condemned" isn't responsible for is reprehensible, again, if you believe abortion is murder. I've met pro life individuals who only allow for a carve out in the event the mother faces a tangible risk of being disabled or killed by continuing pregnancy, and I tend to respect their intellectual consistency.
The issue with that intellectual consistency, is that the same people oppose sexual education and contraception which has been shown to significantly reduce abortions (let's not even talk about all the cases where they support killing of born people). If they do not support sexual education and contraception, they are not intellectually honest, they are not pro-life, but want to push a specific world view.
I don't think I've ever met a person that believes contraception should be illegal, I'm sure they're out there though. I'd be willing to bet that set of people is far, far smaller than those that think abortion is wrong, and I wouldn't call contraception particularly controversial or opposition to contraception a mainstream view by any means.
Sexual education is another topic, a lot of people oppose it to one degree or another, we all have ideas about what a kid should learn about and at what age, it isn't that unreasonable to say that a parent should have the final say in their children's education, but with that should come more responsibility which it seems many parents don't want to take on.
>The real question at the center of abortion rights legislation is not "should women be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies," it's "at what point does a fetus become a person, entitled to the same legal protections that other people have."
This question has been resolved for years. The government has weighed abortion vs viability and has put reasonably limits on abortion. The pro-life constituent seek to entirely ban abortion past fertilization and even want to ban contraceptives.
I'm not interested in debating anyone that's pro-life anymore because there is no debate or movement to be had. The goal of overturning Roe v Wade isn't a debate, it's a demand. And you should be fighting demands that seek to take away rights with a hard no.
I think it should be, but it is not an enumerated right subject to the 10th amendment. Nor is there a federal law. We have been living with a restriction placed on states by a court decision.
I wish on the last 50 years someone attempted to make it an actual right or even a law.
> That said, framing the debate around abortion purely as a question of bodily autonomy always seemed to be a very dishonest way of engaging with the debate.
Maybe /you/ think it's a dishonest way of engaging with the debate. Most people who are pro-choice consider framing the issue as murder as dishonest.
> Then, should we be allowed to kill braindead and comatose people arbitrarily?
> Or maybe, they just don't look like people, so we don't have to treat them that way? Well, that opens up a pretty ugly can of worms.
These questions are not part of any rational debate.
>Most people who are pro-choice consider framing the issue as murder as dishonest.
I don't think OP was saying it is murder but that it's helpful to have some argument why it's not murder (since there are some that claim that it is). If someone says "Meat is murder" and I say "I have the right to eat what I want" then I've not really responded to their argument and to some it might even sound like I'm implicitly accepting their premise.
I am obviously pro-choice and I do understand the people arguing against abortion rights are doing so in bad faith in most cases but I am still not sure why there is such reluctance (in debates I've seen) to not demolish the "fetus=human being" argument which is put forward as the primary reason to ban abortion.
Why do they consider that framing dishonest? Or I should ask why you consider that framing dishonest, I don't want to ask you to speak for other people.
The people with usual pro-life discourse are also pro-guns, and generally are only pro-life when it comes to fœtuses…
So them insisting they care about life is just dishonest. It’s obviously to enforce their archaic views of the world. It’s not even written in their beloved Bible, it’s a made up concern.
If you buy into this pro-life bullshit, you’re either being manipulated or dishonest.
This seems to be an obvious strawman of an argument.
First, you assert that being pro-gun implicitly means being pro-death. This is not the case. I and many others who are vehemently pro-gun feel the way we do because we believe that self-defense is a fundamental right of a human being, and that possessing and carrying the means to effectively defend one’s self is the practical implementation of recognition of the right.
Second, you assert that gun rights are about enforcing one’s view on others. This is also not true for anyone with whom I’ve discussed this issue. Gun rights advocates see this as about preventing people from imposing their will on others by force.
Third, you implicitly assert that all gun rights advocates are Christian. This is demonstrably false.
Fourth, after asking the reader to take the above assertions as fact, you accuse anyone who disagrees with you as being ignorant of their own biases or a liar.
People don’t have to agree. That’s fine. You may be surprised to discover that people who hold different views from you do so because they form those views from different lived experiences. All it takes is a little empathy.
Without getting too much into the argument, you make a couple of logical fallacies.
> First, you assert that being pro-gun implicitly means being pro-death. This is not the case. I and many others who are vehemently pro-gun feel the way we do because we believe that self-defense is a fundamental right of a human being, and that possessing and carrying the means to effectively defend one’s self is the practical implementation of recognition of the right.
The argument does not need to be that pro-gun means pro-death, but can mean self-autonomy/self-defense over being forced to do something. That same argument could be made for an abortion, e.g. the mother uses it as a last means of self-defense over being forced to care for a child for the rest of their lives.
> Second, you assert that gun rights are about enforcing one’s view on others. This is also not true for anyone with whom I’ve discussed this issue. Gun rights advocates see this as about preventing people from imposing their will on others by force.
Actually they said pro-lifers want to force their view onto others. He also said pro-lifers are typically pro-gun, however that does not logically imply that all pro-gun proponents are pro-life and want to force their view onto others.
> Third, you implicitly assert that all gun rights advocates are Christian. This is demonstrably false.
Again all (most) pro-lifers are pro-gun does not imply that all pro-gunners are pro-life. That's logically incorrect.
If we were really debating the question of whether a fœtus is a person I’d be more open to "opinions".
But that’s not what’s actually going on with that debate on a national scale.
You can’t deny that it almost never comes genuinely because someone is curious. It’s not a philosophical question. we ever need to "debate" it because it’s pushed down Americans throat by people with an obviously reactionary political agenda. I don’t believe those who adhere to this political package and pretend to care about a feotus when they don’t care about his mother’s life. Could we stop pretending it’s not about controlling women?
I wouldn't say that. To take another example, you might not think it's society's responsibility to house homeless people while also thinking it is wrong to kill them. So expecting people who think (what they believe to be) murder should be illegal to then want to take good care of the world is dishonest, the second does not follow from the first.
But if society kicks out the homeless people during a particularly cold winter season and they happen to die of hypothermia, then that's deemed acceptable.
The reality is that the second often does derive from the first, it's just enough degrees separated that they don't feel the cognitive dissonance. It's the same reasons why the pro-life constituents are often against increasing welfare and aid for single mothers, as George Carlin once brought up.
This whole diatribe isn’t on topic for this article, and doesn’t really fit on hacker news. Your Facebook page is a better place for this kind of content
So, to get this straight, the working definition here for "socially conservative" is anyone who steals things or exploits others, regardless of whether they support gay rights or vote democrat.
Yeah, in that light, these social conservatives do seem pretty bad.
>Somehow I find albini's version too toyed with (some instruments pops out at times)
I'm a professional record producer and songwriter. Here are my thoughts:
Very likely it's the other way around. Albini is notoriously hard-headed about refusing to use compression on tracks and mixes. He's gone on record about how compressors ruin the tone, expressivity, and micro-dynamics of recorded sounds.
Regardless of whether you agree with that, and he does have a point, compression performs one job admirably: it prevents dynamic sounds from unexpectedly popping out of a determined dynamic range.
This is a disagreement lots of people have had with Albini's method, and he's also a little prickly about these things. He has an artistic vision of "properly" recording bands and mixing them in a way that doesn't adulterate or modify their live sound. In other words, he tries to get the final sound just through exacting microphone placement while recording, and applies the absolute minimum of post-processing.
However, the consensus in commercial record production at this point is that signal processing such as compression, distortion, and equalization, even in dramatic quantity, can create a more compelling audio result. Albini certainly views this as leading to a decline in fidelity (in the etymological sense of truth), and possibly as leading to a decline in artistic integrity (heavily debated).
A couple final ideas:
- In a recorded-music world, what constitutes an "authentic" or "true" sound?
- Should a studio operator (recording/mixing) aim to respect the real-world sound of the artist, or the intentions of the artist? How do you identify the intentions of an artist?
Why is the terminology always that the US gets to "punish" everyone else? It reeks of American exceptionalism and misguided paternalism, not to mention dubiously claimed moral high ground.
Russia has clearly made a tragic error by violently and unjustly invading Ukraine. They've escalated the world into a new cold war and perhaps dealt a death blow to globalization in the process. But...
If the US wants to de-escalate towards peace and prosperity, maybe it's best to reframe foreign policy in terms of cooperation and negotiation rather than discipline. Or maybe Americans are just that much better and more right that it's their job to keep the kids in line.
Do people really think this "big stick" attitude doesn't breed widespread resentment?
The russian 'big stick' on Ukraine certainly seemed to breed widespread resentment. To the point the ROW is glad the US is there to coordinate the punitive response.
Europe is happy when the u.s. bully beats up the Russian bully. The non western world sees another proxy war where bullies clash and another little guy takes the damage
