I didn’t watch tat much movies, but maybe you’re right and this all is just me being dumb or disconnected from reality. Maybe I’m also biased by my interactions with cops and/or soldiers (which were mostly bad experiences).

I guess CAF is canadian army ? I think during time of peace, the army does not take that much violent actions against its own population (although cops do). So it’s more about the second part of spreading fear to keep control : if anyone goes against their power, they will be allowed to take these violent actions. I confess that I do not know much about canadian army, so maybe I’m wrong. But I think violence and terror are only clearly visible during periods of tension, and as Canada seems to be quite peaceful, maybe violence and terror are juste dimmed for now.

I do not consider violence and terror as goals of military : i sincerely believe that most people in armies have no interest in them, and that they are here for other reasons (patriotism, security, a sense of belonging, etc). I think violence and terror are rather aspects or consequences of military : you need them to achieve other goals, which could be positive (control, security, enforcing the State). Good actions (summarized by “capturing hearts and minds” if i understood), are also aspects/consequences/tools armies may use to reach these goals.

So, to my eyes, making good things remains compatible with using terror, because this one relies on the mere possibility of violence. It also seems compatible with violence itself, if you consider both can affect different targets at the same time. All of these are tools they may need for other goals, positive or not. But I remain quite certain that violence and terror are necessary consequences in the wide panel of actions an army can take, despite the goodwill of every person implied.

Not sure if this is clear or clever though, sorry if anything sounds dumb and bothers you.

Yeah, I can understand the initial trust in law, and maybe debatting it later. This is not my way of thinking but i admit it’s really reasonable.

For the terror, my reflexion is the following : army/cops try to maintain a specific system in place and have 2 ways to do so. For people who (more or less) actively defy their authority, they take violent actions (kidnapping, pressure, wounding, killing, etc). For people who are not (yet) actively defying their authority, they hope that their violent actions will make people afraid of them, so they do not act against authority. I refer to thz first part as killing (though it’s not only killing but more generally violent actions against people), and the second part as terror.

So, imho, though war crimes may spray more terror in a single act than usual army stuff, both spray terror in their own way.

Yeah, this is what makes one legal and the other one not. I suppose that in your opinion, being legal and following rules of war makes it better and I would agree, it seems reasonably better. But is it good though ? To my eyes, killing and spreading terror remains bad, legally or not. If we add some other parameter, it may even be worse to do it legally : the scale of destruction is far worse when a violent group is legal (and so financed and supported by whole countries).

The result of the analysis depends on what parameters you choose : is it legal ? Is it big ? What are the motives ? You can choose what you want, and that’s probably why we (I assume this here) have different opinions. My wonder is : why should we focus mostly or entirely on the legal aspect/parameter when analysing things like violence and power ?

(If i misunderstood what you said, sorry by advance)

Im with you ! I know and understand people don’t like to see things this way, but I never saw any good argument as to why this nuance between legal/legitimate and illegal/illegitimate power should be taken into account in theory (other than practical matters, like it would be kinda hard to organize any other way now)

Happy to hear this. That’s the danger of implied things, your message ends up way worse when you dont say them out loud

Okay you now have stated a correct reason. I would add two things that can help you refine your way of seeing things :

• It’s probably best to say ‘kill Russian invaders’ or even ‘kill invaders’, since the problem is invaders and not Russian (I mean, killing random civilians in Moscow wont help Ukraine, but it’s still what you said is good)
• Insisting on killing is still weird. Killing soldiers is not the goal of fighting an invasion back, it is one way to achieve the real goal : all Russians soldiers out of Ukraine. If that’s what you’re talking about, i advise you to say ‘fighting’ instead of ‘killing’, so it’s not mistaken for a random bloodlust against a country.

Now I got to apologize if we agree on all those points, I mistook your shortened thinking for blatant stupidity, which would be my bad

Alright alright, promoting killing of people based on their country without bothering giving a reason, i see what type of asshole im talking to

Yeah, like it never happened thar US weapons send somewhere to fight Russians were then used for even worse purposes Besides, is killing Russians a good thing? I mean fighting back the invasion is necessary, and it will cause deaths in russians troops but we should wish for a minimum of casualties, we are talking about human lives

Thank you captain !

I see what you mean, in your case as well as mine, Reaper is far more powerful and so far more adequate to our needs But people do not always search for powerful software. Sometimes they only want something easy to learn, with only basic tasks but well performed and entirely free. When you have these requirements, Audacity is better

Not at the moment, from what I know

Yeah, i kinda agree with you, social media violence is “not” violence, or at least a lesser violence. This was my point : trans are the target of true violence, while being tired of hearing about them is not being target of true violence. This asymmetry may be the cause of that much people disagreeing with you.

On the up/downvote origin, you are right, i did not knew it. Everytime i have seen it used, and so everytime i used it, it was as a like/dislike option. You genuinely are the first person i see complaining about it, so i considered you wrong on this, my bad. But the idea still remains in a different way : though you are technically right, maybe you still can consider that using up/down as like/dislike is a common thing to do.

On the Facebook point, i do not know. It is rather a “like” system than a “like/dislike” : there isn’t really a way to disagree with a statement (the “angry” emoji being the closest, but it just conveys that you are angry, not if you agree with the com or not).

Well, let’s take it as a personal opinion then. Now here’s mine : people seeking attention by complaining about supposedly attention seekers are double losers, first because of my judgment, and second because of their own judgment.

Do we really know ? Maybe they believe in our gods ? Maybe they believe in their god, and it’s the true one ?

I mean, you mocked them using the exact reasoning you criticize them for, like “making a show of being hated -> attention seeker”. But ok, let’s forget about that. You may consider that you are actually mocking communities that are the target of true violence, not just downvotes. Like they get hurt, killed, harassed, even by administrations and systems ? Maybe that’s the reason for your downvotes. And did you realized that this is really the main use of downvotes ? Just a quick way to react. If you agree/like, upvote. If you do not agree/dislike, downvote. It’s very simple really. Either you don’t get that, either you are mocking people for using tools the way they were intended to. Both ways seem dumb to me. If you want a place that do not allows this quick reactions that are up/downvotes, well maybe switch for other platforms that are not designed around it ?

Wtf is this argument ? Are you at the same time validating “Ugh trans people are attention seeker, they think they deserve it because people hate on them” and “Hey look at us, we are the heroes of this story because people on internet disagree with us” ? I know i already replied to your other comments, but it’s funny it’s the same in both case : you just do what you criticize other people for supposedly doing

Eh, in general i agree with you, but i think in this case it could be considered as “ironic”. Like someone complains “I’m tired of hearing about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”, and someone replies “Im’ tired of hearing complaints about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”. I think we all agree that the argument is not really good in any case, but as the second one was a reply, maybe we can see it as an application of first comment’s logic to itself.

The main problem with this subject is that the abaya is not a religious clothing strictly speaking. It is not enforced by any muslim sacred text, a lot of muslim women do not wear it, whereas non-muslim women wear it. It is rather typical from the arabic culture than from the muslim religion (it originated from bedouin culture in the first place).

Here in France people are mad about secularism because of an old hate of Christian Church, but nowadays it is rather used to discriminate jews and muslims. (At school, yarmulke and headscarf are banned, but christian crosses are allowed if they’re not too big. Every day i saw people in school with christian crosses around the neck or as earrings, and no one bothered them, while they were harassing girls with a headscarf.)

Imo here the government is just creating a new debate on a stupid question, just to scare people about muslims and give hard right politicians a bone to chew, as they always do. While everyone talks and is afraid about what teenagers could wear, people talk less about the other laws they are passing, for having more control over Internet or whatever they want.

Ok, if you want some info here is a little summary :

• Banning people condamned for bullying/hate speech from every social media they used for it
• Blocking websites (mostly porn) without judge’s approval, both physically and by forcing navigators/DNS to block it
• More ID checking to “protect minor”

And if you want details :

The current proposition of law is a melting pot of many Internet security subjects :

• preventing children to access porn
• punishing websites that host pedo porn harder
• punishing deepfake and ai generated montage (and montages in general)
• preventing hate speech and violent speech in all social media, including chat applications
• regulating the market of cloud storage providers
• regulating gambling and real-money video games
• preventing phishing

They have different actions at their disposal :

• Fines for website admins who do not comply
• Forcing websites to check people’s identity to prevent minor accessing harming content
• Forcing websites to ban some accounts suspected of illegal activity
• Forcing websites to try and block a suspected person (not the user) from using/creating any accounts on their website (for max. 6 months to 1 year)
• Forcing navigators, DNS providers and Internet compagnies to block any access to a specific domain for max 3 months, if this domain does not comply in (short) time to the administration instructions
• Forcing websites to mention the name and adress of any person or company that host their content
• Forcing apps markets to remove an app that does not comply to the administration instructions
• It would be mandatory for vpn ads to always display a message that says something like “Pirating contents harms artistic creation” (does not have a lot to do with the rest, but it find it interesting anyway)
• It would be mandatory for any content sharing website to stock datas enabling the identification of anyone who participated in the content creation
• Easier police raid in places where content is hosted (no judge approval needed, they just get notified of the raid)

Now, i did not hear from this subject a lot, mostly for the pornography part since we probably soon will have to show ID cards to watch porn. I remember that everytime there are more or less violent protests, government says it originates from social media and that they have to control social media to prevent violences. Most politicians i heard on this seem to not fully understand what is at stake, which is kinda usual.

I agree on the point that “they are racist/pedo because of the power they receive” is pretty much false in this situation.

But i would say that this is not the only meaning behind “Power corrupts”. (What follows is only a personnal opinion, there may be some wrong usage of terms or anything) To me, it also means that power corrupts our ways of thinking : believing in a strong power, even if you do not hold it, tends to makes this power more important than human lives or conditions. Like “Police is important, so it’s okay if some peoples get hurt to protect it”. In other words, the more you believe in power, the more it may become an end rather than a tool. This is were the corruption is to me.

I think that people get racist because they believe in some kind of great cause that should held power (like Homeland, Historical Background, Race, etc.). Then they consider normal to use power for this cause, even if it is against other people. Maybe it’s not the same thing for getting attracted to young people. But doing pedo crimes always involve some power in the very act of it, and to some extent in the decision making that led to it.

To sum it up, imo the hate and weird attraction of those cops basically mean that they think they have, or that they should have, a legitimate power over other people (minorities, kids, etc.). Even if it’s not the specific power that they got as cops that corrupted them, it is their belief in power more generally. (and as other said, the power they got as cops probably reinforced all of this, as a vicious circle).

I’m not an expert but i learned about this at university one or two years ago. I’m not entirely sure of what i’m saying though, so take my word carefully and feel free to correct me.

From what i recall -and i think at least in western europe, i don’t know for other places-, before photography, it was quite expensive to get a portrait or a family portrait, mostly because of the time needed to pose. So it was something only nobles or rich bourgeois family could afford.

Then photography was invented. At first, it was mostly an amateur hobby : you had to be a handy(wo)man to get all the components needed, and in first times even to build your own device. There were no schools, no official degree, knowledge only passed from person to person.

So first “professional” photographers (i mean the first one to get paid) were not exactly professionals, most had no previous clients, or anything. Of course, their prices were much low than painters, so increasing number of people came to their shop. But it was for the most part “new” customers, middleclass people or families, would previously could not afford paintings.

So at first, they did not really stole painters’ jobs, they rather extended access to portraits to a new part of population. Now, when it became more popular, the less rich clients of painters tend to switch to photography : it felt modern, it was a kind of trend, and it was cheaper.

At that point, some of the painter’s client disappeared. But there were mostly two situations : big and renowned painters still got jobs, because noble people kind of considered photography a thing for common people. Modest painters, who had client amongst bourgeois, began to lose their jobs. I think that a part of them switched to photography at that point : i also think this is were photo editing began, because they could use their painter/drawer skills to erase or slightly modify the picture when it wasn’t “dry” (don’t know the specifics of photography at that time ^^').

So overall, if you compare like the XVII century and nowadays, of course painters lost their jobs. But from what i (think i) know, transition was pretty smooth, as it let time to painters to continue to paint for upper classes or to convert to photographers.

I pretty much agree with other people, not sure if the comparison with AI is perfect. But at least I think it might show that new techs mostly comes with two effect : replacing previous practices and creating new ones (or at least opening them to new people).