People usually keep their phone near them. Even when they sleep. So if you know where the phone is via tracking, then you know where the owner of the phone is. And ultimately where the owner of the phone sleeps.
> One moment I was perfectly awake, and the next moment I was hearing the sounds of people talking around me and I groggily became aware of my doctor getting me to acknowledge him.
Yep. I remember the nurse telling me to count backwards from 10 and I remember being a bit annoyed by it but still doing it. I don't know what number I got knocked out on. I don't even remember getting knocked out. The only thing I remember is hearing voices as I slowly woke up. No memory of anything in between.
> Is consciousness required for intelligent behavior?
No. Computers, machinese, animals, plants can display "intelligent" behavior. They have no consciousness.
> It was, I'm told, a very good book that I noped out of about ten pages in.
That's strange. The book grabs your attention from the get go. It starts strong. Stays strong. Ends strong.
> I made it that far before becoming incredibly annoyed at the way literature critics were praising his new invention of post-apocalyptic stories which nobody had ever read before ever.
This makes absolutely no sense. Were you reading the book and reading reviews at the same time?
> Also, if I remember correctly, he felt that the rules of punctuation didn't apply to him. Maybe that paid off if I'd read more than ten pages.
His punctuation was fine. The book reads well. His words and sentences flow. I found it easily one of the most accessible.
> it's just not a story I want to hear. If I want to be depressed and angry Hacker News.
Ah there it is. People with petty gripes always have an agenda. So your "gripes" above are just because you want don't like apocalytic stories and want to warn people off it? Why not just say so instead of making up silly criticisms? Also, it's a work of fiction. It isn't real. Really nothing to get depressed or angry about. If anything, it should make you happy since we don't like in such a hopeless world. But really, like all great literature, it should make you think.
> His punctuation was fine. The book reads well. His words and sentences flow. I found it easily one of the most accessible.
No, this is a fair criticism.
It's true this is done for literary effect, but it does make it harder to read.
To quote McCarthy himself:
> James Joyce is a good model for punctuation. He keeps it to an absolute minimum. There’s no reason to blot the page up with weird little marks. I mean, if you write properly you shouldn’t have to punctuate.[1]
Whilst this might be true, his punctuation style is non-conventional and that does break our expectations making it harder to follow.
> It's true this is done for literary effect, but it does make it harder to read.
What literary effect? I didn't even notice there were punctuation issues until I read the guy's comment. Maybe since it was basically a book where most of the dialogue is between two people? It was one of the easiest and most straightforward reads of my life.
> > James Joyce is a good model for punctuation. He keeps it to an absolute minimum. There’s no reason to blot the page up with weird little marks. I mean, if you write properly you shouldn’t have to punctuate.[1]
...“to make it easier, not to make it harder” to decipher his prose. He wrote that way to make it easier to read. And I agree with him. His prose just flowed. Also, the problem with joyce isn't the punctation. Even with proper punctuation, joyce would be difficult.
But if people have issues with it, then so be it. Are there any examples where his punctuation caused issues for readers?
> I haven't read it myself, but I've seen many report that it was uplifting to them.
Uplifting? There was nothing uplifting about The Road. It's a world without hope. From the description of the forests, seas, societies and families, cormac builds a truly hopeless apocalypse with no hope for redemption or salvation. A world where hope cannot exist.
> Amid the utter horror and hopeless bleakness a parent does everything they can to protect their child.
A father tries to do everything he can to save his son, but ultimately, he fails. It's a world without hope after all. The father dies and a bunch of cannibals "take in" the boy.
It's one of the rare books that I finished in one sitting and then read again a few days later.
> But the love between the father and his son persists to the very end.
So what? Of course the love between a father and son persists. It's only natural. But that's not the point of the book. The book is about finding hope. The father is desperately trying to save his son. To find hope for his son. He thinks there is hope along the coast. That's why they are on "the road". When they reach the coast, they find a leaden sea holding no life. All marine life is dead. They find no hope. There, cannibals that were hunting the father and son shoot the father with an arrow and the father dies. The son buries his father and the cannibals find the boy and "take him in".
This is just reviews with the word "uplifting". Many of the comments with "uplifting" is just saying it is not uplifting.
"This is an unusual book. There is nothing uplifting here, so don't expect it."
"As uplifting as a charred word void of virtually all-living species. As uplifting as a dead land shrouded in night, blanketed with ash and gray snow, legions of charcoaled corpses ornamenting the highways and hallways. As uplifting as the vicious gangs who prowl the countryside surviving on the last food source - other humans. As uplifting as the Halocaust, Idi Amin's Uganda, or Pol Pot's Cambodia."
Read the book. There is nothing uplifting about it. The only thing uplifting about it is that we don't live in such a world. It's as hopeless a world as you can possibly create. It's a world where the wife and mother of the protagonists goes off into the woods to kill herself rather than face the horrors that await her and her husband and her son. That's how bleak and hopeless the world is. It's a world where the father carries a gun to take out his son and himself in case the cannibals get them. It's a world where the father fails to keep his promise to his son and dies, leaving him to a pack of cannibals. And that isn't even the worst of it. What exactly is uplifting here?
> I have read the book, and it is about sticking to your morals no matter how evil the world will become.
What morals? They stole other peoples stuff. They abandoned the poor people in the basement to die at the hands of the cannibals. They "helped" the guy they met on the road but that was due to childish naivety of the son. It was superficial and meaningless help. The book was entirely about amoral animalistic survival than morality. Notice how it was mostly the son who wanted to be "moral". If anything, the book is saying being moral is childish in an amoral world.
If anything, it showed the inability to stick morals. The most important "moral" of the story was the father's promise to the son and his wife, not to let the son fall into the hands of the cannibals. Throughout the book the father promises to kill them both if it came to that. In the end, the father couldn't bring himself to kill the son and left him to the cannibals who were hunting him.
In your response, you say we don't know whether the "good guys" got him or the "bad guys" did. It's obvious the "bad guys" got him. On your first reading, it isn't clear, but after subsequent readings, it is obvious there are no good guys left and the cannibals who were hunting ( or possibly other cannibals ) them got him.
> That is the message of the book.
If that was the message, the book showed how stupid and pointless it was. Not that it was a good thing. If there was a "message", it was that the mother was right and the father was wrong. But that isn't the message either.
Rather than taking the book for it is, people are trying to find a positive message to make themselves feel better. That's a childish notion. Not everything is a disney movie. Not everything has to have a happy ending or a positive message. You don't have to be uplifted or find morality in a book.
It is not. The man that found the child had a shotgun. He was trying to convince the kid that he had his own wife and child. If he was one of the cannibals, he could have just shot him and got it over with...this is like a six year old we are talking about. Overpowering him, kidnapping him, or just shooting him would be more easy. It doesn't make sense for him to try and convince the kid to join him.
>If anything, the book is saying being moral is childish in an amoral world.
I highly disagree. the man had problems trusting others, for good reason. But the child was a reminder to him WHY it is important to stay good. It ties in with Plato's concept of Eudemonia. Helping others must come with a sense of self-preservation. To save others with abandon is not moral...it is recklessness. On the other side of the coin, having nothing BUT self preservation is cowardess. They represent both sides of the same coin...the boy tugs at the fathers heartstrings to keep him in touch with his morality, and the father has the common sense to keep them alive.
>Rather than taking the book for it is, people are trying to find a positive message to make themselves feel better. That's a childish notion.
Making your interpretation the "one and only interpretation" and dismissing others as "making themselves feel better" is closed minded, myopic, and also childish. While I disagree with your interpretation of the book, I respect it. However the point of art is to attach personal meaning to it. That is not childish...that is human.
Your interpretation is that there is no meaning, and that morality is pointless. Mine is that it is important to do your best in a world that is evil, even if you mess up and don't live up to your own standards sometimes. "carrying the fire" seems like obvious symbolism to me for morality. They don't always carry it...they are sometimes bad themselves. When that happens, the kid gets upset at the dad and there are consequences. The dad develops as a character and decides that giving up and killing them both is the wrong thing to do. Is he right? Honestly probably not. But that is the thing about morality, it is not always black and white.
> If he was one of the cannibals, he could have just shot him and got it over with
In the book, the cannibals like to keep their "herd" alive in the basement. Remember? Why did they keep their humans alive?
> Overpowering him, kidnapping him, or just shooting him would be more easy.
No. It would be easier to convince him to follow them willingly. Would you rather drag a corpse 10 miles or have the the corpse follow you 10 miles. I can't tell if you are trolling or not? Throughout book, exhaustion and the physical toll play a prominent role - of just pushing a cart, father carrying the boy, etc.
It's getting exhausting repeating the obvious. The conclusion of the book is the father dead and the orphaned boy ending up with cannibals. Exactly what they wanted to avoid and breaking the promise that the father made to his wife. If that is uplifting to you and you find moral value in that fine. I guess if you keep looking for something, you'll eventually find it. Even if it is not there.
My problem with your reasoning is that it relies on a literal interpretation of the words spoken in the book. The father says that "there are no other kids his age", yes, but remember...most of the book is told through the father's eyes. He doesn't know any more than we do. There is no information technology anymore...all he knows is that he has not seen any kids and that he hasn't heard of any kids. He is an unreliable narrator.
>No. It would be easier to convince him to follow them willingly. Would you rather drag a corpse 10 miles or have the the corpse follow you 10 miles. I can't tell if you are trolling or not?
I am not trolling. Have you ever picked up a six year old? They weigh practically nothing. The cannibals are not shown to be as exhausted or weak as the father so it would not be as much of a problem. Perhaps if he gets off to the idea of betrayal, or if he really does think that having a kid follow him for 10 miles would be easier convincing him would be easier, but I have a hard time believing that.
>I guess if you keep looking for something, you'll eventually find it. Even if it is not there.
I could say the same thing about your interpretation of events. I do wish you would be more open minded and less cynical...the way you so easily dismiss people and feel that your interpretation is the only correct one is extremely offputting. Productive conversation cannot happen if you keep dismissing everyone else as "missing the obvious."
> My problem with your reasoning is that it relies on a literal interpretation of the words spoken in the book.
What? Now you are just desperately grasping at straws.
> The father says that "there are no other kids his age", yes, but remember...most of the book is told through the father's eyes.
And? So what? The kid also says so, not that it matters.
> There is no information technology anymore...
That's right. Before the internet and IT, nobody saw any children. This comment is the dumbest thing I've read in a long while.
> all he knows is that he has not seen any kids and that he hasn't heard of any kids. He is an unreliable narrator.
The kid also said so. And I don't think you know what "unreliable narrator" is. There has to be clues within the story to imply that he is unreliable ( psychologically, memorywise, etc ). Not that he doesn't have access to a smartphone.
> Have you ever picked up a six year old? They weigh practically nothing.
Yes. Not only that, I was six year old once. Long before I was 6 years old, my parents stopped carrying me around. And you are being intentionally sneaky here. Who said anything about picking up a 6 year old. I said carry a 6 year old how many miles they had to go.
> Perhaps if he gets off to the idea of betrayal, or if he really does think that having a kid follow him for 10 miles would be easier convincing him would be easier, but I have a hard time believing that.
Yes. It's easier to believe that in a starving world, a random kind couple is willing to take in someone else's child to feed. Something his own father struggled immensely to do. That is easier to believe.
It's obvious what happened. It's why you ignored every one of my points except the absolutely nonsense about "no more information technology..."
Let me guess, you are the type of person who watched the movie No Country for Old Men and believe that chigurh didn't kill the wife. Or that the girl in the red dress in schindler's list wasn't dead but playing dead because she was saved by some magical good nazis. At this point I hope you at pretending to be trolling to save yourself some embarrassment.
I'm so dumb. I forgot that before information technology, kids were invisible. Thank you.
It is not letting me reply to your reply to my comment, so I am going to reply here instead.
>What? Now you are just desperately grasping at straws.
Explain. Am I incorrect?
>And? So what? The kid also says so, not that it matters.
Because he has not seen any. Just because they didn't see any kids doesn't mean they don't exist. The fact that the kid himself exists suggests that this is not entirely correct.
>That's right. Before the internet and IT, nobody saw any children. This comment is the dumbest thing I've read in a long while.
I would appreciate it if you could make a point without resorting to insults. For one suggesting that others are childish for their interpretations, you are resorting to childish actions.
As for my point, perhaps I was not clear in my meaning. I meant that there was no way to verify that there are no kids...no newspapers saying that "all kids are dead," or any other way for him to verify that information. He is just saying what he has seen, which is no kids.
>There has to be clues within the story to imply that he is unreliable ( psychologically, memorywise, etc ). Not that he doesn't have access to a smartphone.
Again, you misinterpret my point. The father is not omniscient. He does not know for certain.
>Yes. Not only that, I as six year old once. Long before I was 6 years old, my parents stopped carrying me around. And you are being intentionally sneaky here. Who said anything about picking up a 6 year old. I said carry a 6 year old how many miles they had to go.
At this point, I am starting to think you are not actually reading my comments. A well fed cannibal with a stomach full of people is not going to have trouble carrying a six year old the same way a starving father on the brink of death would be.
>Let me guess, you are the type of person who watched the movie No Country for Old Men and believe that chigurh didn't kill the wife. Or that the girl in the red dress in schindler's list wasn't dead but playing dead because she was saved by some magical good nazis. At this point I hope you at pretend to be trolling to save yourself some embarrassment.
Now you are resorting to ad hominem and assuming things about my character. No, I am sure Chigurh killed the wife. I have not seen Shindler's List so I cannot say one way or the other.
>At this point I hope you at pretend to be trolling to save yourself some embarrassment
The only person embarrassed here is you. You have shown great immaturity during this conversation, and immediately assume the worst in everyone. That says a lot more about you than me. I will not be continuing this conversation, because it is obvious any further discussion with you will be fruitless. Have a blessed day.
From what I recall, it's not stated that the family who takes in the boy are cannibals. That could be one interpretation, I suppose, if depression is your goal.
But if you take them at their word, they're "carrying the fire", so the story gets a hopeful ending.
Perhaps that's what people find uplifting about it.
>This is just reviews with the word "uplifting". Many of the comments with "uplifting" is just saying it is not uplifting.
I noted that when I posted the link. But at least half are saying it is uplifting.
I obviously can't argue further as I haven't read it. I will remark that different people will react to the same material variously uplifted or beaten-down, and neither reaction is less valid (unless they just misunderstood the plot). Personally, I tend to find depictions of nobility and perseverance in the face of imminent doom interesting and moving if not uplifting.
> I obviously can't argue further as I haven't read it.
You should. It's the best of its kind in my opinion.
> I will remark that different people will react to the same material variously uplifted or beaten-down, and neither reaction is less valid (unless they just misunderstood the plot).
I'm open to people having subjective feelings - like whether they enjoyed it, they found it too graphic, not graphic enough, etc. But uplifting is different. There has to be something concrete to back up the feeling of being uplifted.
> Personally, I tend to find depictions of nobility and perseverance in the face of imminent doom interesting and moving if not uplifting.
But that's the point. It isn't nobility and perseverance in the face of imminent doom. The mother thought it was inevitable doom. The father had hope. It's perseverance in false hope. Nonexistent hope. It's like you seeing a person jump 100 stories from the twin towers and flapping his arms in the hopes of flying and saving himself. Would you say that is uplifting? Of course not. Unless you were being edgy or silly.
Instead of reading silly amazon reviews, go read the book and see for yourself.
> It felt to me that the family that takes in the boy are not bad people.
What family? You really believe the man and woman who took in the boy had a "family"? A world where boy's own mother abandoned him and his father to kill herself because there was no hope. A world where there are no plants, animals, fish, etc left. A world where a a woman gives birth and then she and her friends cook the fetus over a campfire. You think in a world where there is no food, no possibility of food, where everyone is either starving to death or cannibalizing, that there is a happy family? It's a world where everyone is starving to death. You think "a family" is going to take in an extra mouth to feed?
Did you miss the parts in the book where they explicitly mention how there is no children the boy's age left? The boy desperately wants a friend but there are no children his age left. Except for that one "imaginary" kid he ran into that disappeared. Why do you think that is?
Also, the father and son were being hunted by a pack of cannibals who mortally wound the father. What are the odds that the cannibal hunters caught up to him. What are the odds that a magical good samaritan family stumbled upon him?
When I first read the book, I thought the kid was saved. Then I reread it and boy cormac really made it crystal clear how hopeless that world was.
> The boy offers to give the man his pistol but the man tells him to keep it. That indicates the man is not trying to trick him.
Yes and the nice cannibal they killed offered to give them food and shelter. Remember how nice that cannibal was? The pistol was worthless and if I remember correctly, it didn't even have a bullet left. Of course he let him keep it. It's no threat.
> Talking about odds in a fictional story is misguided.
No. It's a matter of determining what is most likely.
> The odds are 100% whatever the writer intended.
Yes. The author wrote everything that led up to the meeting for a reason. Everything the author wrote leads to the man and woman being cannibals. It's pretty obvious. It isn't a children's book. For children, the author explains everything clearly and spoonfeeds you. But for adult books you have to think about what the author is trying to say. Did that world seem like it had any good samaritans that you envision. No it did not. For a reason.
What the author intended is 100% obvious. You don't like it because you childishly want a happy ending. Cormac wasn't writing disney books or children books. If you are still confused and you seem to be, go read his other books. You'll understand what kind of writer he was.
> Second, get off your drugs. SSRIs and benzos and other psychotropic medications have serious side effects that will cause you to have suicidal and homicidal ideations.
But aren't therapists the one peddling these drugs to their patients? You say see a therapist and then say avoid the drugs they peddle? What your local street drug dealer is to the drug cartels is what your therapist is to big pharma.
Also, is there any data or evidence that therapists help? Are we sure they don't make things worse?
> and like all blowups on Reddit, this one will pass as well.
Exactly. Reddit holds all the cards. Time after time, no great migration after a "revolt".
> Even r/nba committed to an indefinite timeframe at arguably the most important time of the NBA season.
The NBA championship just ended and the season is over. It's the least important time of the NBA season.
This is nothing but an annoyance at best for reddit. If things got serious, they'll just take ban the revolt leaders and take over the subs. Frankly, I despise the "power" mods as much as the reddit admins. Hope there is a mass culling of the mods on reddit as these privileged mods are who made reddit unbearable and turned it into a propaganda cesspool.
> In the end I'd say the US's broken legislative system has forced the fed to make some really tough decisions.
But don't the fed and congress serve the same master? Congress is 'broken' for a reason.
> The board of the fed saw congress's failure and figured "if this country can't execute fiscal policy well at least we can step in with expansionary monetary policy".
No. The idea of using monetary policy over fiscal policy has been in use for decades. It's simpler, quicker and politically easier.
> Came to kick them in the ass when covid rolled around
That's when we had the expansionary fiscal policy. Where's the praise for congress?
> but it was also arguably responsible for one the best decades of economic growth in human history.
It was responsible for the biggest asset price increases ( stocks, housing prices, etc ) along with extreme wealth disparity, stagnant wages, low socio-economic advancement and the political chaos of obama-trump-biden.
Crazy to see someone praise a bunch of unaccountable international bankers for their monetary policy especially when the monetary policy causes the economic problems in the first place. And then put down elected politicians for their lack of fiscal policy and ignore their expansionary fiscal policy during covid. Comment reads like FED PR.
It's more likely a negotiating tactic. It happens all the time. Also, I wouldn't take any article that begins "Last week, when Elon Musk hosted conspiracy theory nonsense peddler RFK Jr. on a Twitter Spaces..." seriously. Immediately stopped reading because obviously the "journalist" has an axe to grind and an agenda to push. Could almost guarantee there's nothing of value in the article. So much garbage everywhere.
> Elon Musk hosted conspiracy theory nonsense peddler RFK Jr.
Technically this happened and its true.
Is it really relevant to the discussion? Actually it could be as he also discussed twitters financial problems in that meeting.
Last question: was this a useless article, or garbage and if no value as you put it? Well, I learned about the correlation between not paying the bills and not receiving advertisement money which was new to me.
You hit all the propaganda talking points in one comment. Usually such comments stick to one talking point. "China, china, china" or "russia, russia, russia" or ...
> Let me say that what the US government is doing wouldn't even be controversial in 99% of the world, including probably 90% of democracies.
That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US.
> People in other countries are much more clear eyed and pragmatic about these things.
Most of the people around the world don't have any problems with iran, russia, china and mexico. Maybe we should look into why we have conflicts with people all over the world.
You're not wrong about the propaganda talking points.
>Most of the people around the world don't have any problems with iran, russia, china and mexico. Maybe we should look into why we have conflicts with people all over the world.
In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China, and nearly everyone is concerned about Mexican Drug Cartels.
We can simultaneously acknowledge that we have an adversarial relationship as a country with Iran, Russia, and China and that it's not an excuse to extract data from the people.
Then the courts are wrong, as they often are when it comes to constitutionality. Domestic dragnet surveillance is a very obvious violation of the 4th amendment.
In what sense are they “wrong”? You don’t agree with them. But theirs is the final word on the matter until a new court or new law comes around. The interpretation of the Bill of Rights has varied greatly over the last 250 years even though the words have stayed the same. The law isn’t based on our ideas of what it is, the law is based on what is enforced.
Multiple revelations including Snowdens reveal that the data is not uncorrelated/anonymous, if it were I'd imagine it'd be of little use for intelligence purposes. Maybe I am too dismissive/cynical but I don't put much stock in what the courts decide or why on issues like this, they're all under somebody's thumb from what I can tell. They're the same folks that brought us such hits as "corporations are people and money is speech", call me crazy but I don't think they're making their decisions based on high-minded constitutional principles
> In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China
What's a liberal democracy? Oh you mean our vassals are at odds with the countries we are at odds with? I find that odd.
What is the "liberal democracies" problem with russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels. Take ireland for example. What's their beef with russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels?
Oh they have no beef. It's just that they have to follow orders. We say jump and they say how high. Maybe one day, these liberal democracies will be liberated and regain their sovereignty. Hey maybe russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels can help liberate them.
An influential and prominent bureaucrat once said america has no friends or enemies, just interests. Think about it.
Isn't it more insulting to call countries you firebombed and nuked "friends and allies". Imagine if china firebombed germany and currently occupies it. Would we not laugh if china called germany their friend and ally? Imagine if russia nuked japan and occupied it. Would we call them besties for life?
Edit: You still haven't answered what ireland's problem with iran is? What's ireland's problem with russia and china. And what issues do they have with the mexicans.
why isn't the west or the islamic world doing anything about this? isn't the forever war in the middle east over by now? why can't we redeploy some of those military assets to invade china next? certainly we can get support from saudi and israel and pakistan and the UK to support us, right?
If anything that has been the example the US has set for the rest of the world by "spreading democracy" through regime change and war. The correct way to spread democracy is to be a shining example of a free society by being prosperous without killing people that have done you no harm.
So then the liberal democracies were against the US when we invaded iraq? Are they against the occupation of germany, japan, korea, italy, etc? Or is it not conquest when we do it?
> China has concentration camps
"Concentration camps". Yes and liberal democracies have torture chambers all over the world. Strange. Did they disband these "concentration camps"? Have the ugyhers been genocided already? Why the complete radio silence on the "genocide" of the century? Because it turned out to be a lie and propaganda? Wasn't it 3 million died in the camps. Then it was 300K. Then 300. Then 3. Then 0. Now do you want to discuss palestine? Or do muslims in palestine not matter?
> Iran brutally oppresses women
No they don't. Just because they have their own cultural values doesn't mean they oppress women. No more than saudi arabia does. You support diversity right?
> The US and its allies are free democracies where people vote.
So is russia, iran, venezuela, etc...
> Spare us this sophomore in college "both sides are the same" nonsense
No. One side is clearly worse - the "liberal democracies".
Who invaded more muslim countries and destroyed more muslim lives? Liberal democracies or china, russia, iran, mexican cartels?
Which country is more oppressive to women? Saudi arabia ( liberal democracies favorite muslim country ) or iran?
Which country has waged more wars of conquest? Liberal democracies or russia, china, iran, mexican cartels?
By your own criteria, the liberal democracies are the worst.
> That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US.
The popular notion of civil rights in America and the historical reality are at odds. Americans have always been spied on, it was just less publicized in the past.
Russia is an existential threat to our democracy. Surveillance is necessary so no election can interfered by the Russians. Millions of lives have been lost because of an illegal president. We don't want that to happen again.
That's the Sinclair Broadcast Group forcing the news orgs they own to read from the same script. They also had "must run" news segments that include conservative commentary. That doesn't mean Russia isn't a threat to democracy world wide, it just means we have a problem with mega corps owning too much media. I don't think that gives the US an excuse to spy on our own citizens however.
Way to be ultimately dismissive and basically call PC a shill and with a smugness that is unnecessary. Different people have different interests and you can’t just ad hominem them as propaganda.
He expressed the most absolutely brainwashed take on why surveillance is necessary. It's difficult to take him seriously when his talking points couldn't have been written better by any three-letter agency PR department.
Do you have a good reason to be defending obviously bad talking points? In the free marketplace of ideas, this one has evidently been assigned a value less than zero.
Do I need a reason other than curiosity? Asking for a rebuttal that isn't a personal attack is hardly defending. It should be the base level of discussion according to site guidelines.
It's a 32-day-old account named after the bad guy from a Star Wars movie. I'd be suspicious of them before even reading the comment, which was fairly bonkers. As for substantive rebuttal of their statements, others have already done it elsewhere in the thread.
If I was in a room with someone who said "I think the world would be better off if everyone in this room except me were dead", I think you'd understand my nervousness around and dislike of the person.
You said there should be 6.9 billion less people on the planet and when asked if you'd be one of the 0.1 billion remaining people you said yes and basically acknowledged you'd already said too much. If that's what you left up, I shudder at whatever this [1] might have been
> If I was in a room with someone who said "I think the world would be better off if everyone in this room except me were dead", I think you'd understand my nervousness around and dislike of the person.
No, what you said was, you think the world would be better off if 6.9B people were dead and you were one of the remaining 100M. And what I'm saying is, those two statements are not very different.
