You missed the part where it put private grocers out of business and forced dependence on government largess. Contrary to popular belief, more power to those with a monopoly on murder rarely works out for regular people.
Why on earth would you support arresting people for any speech, hate or otherwise? It is just so obviously a terrible idea that has been regurgitated over and over for thousands of years, countless books, wars, philosophical treatise and here we are. No wonder we aren't going to make it.
I am very much pro free speech, but I do draw the line with implicit or explicit threats of violence. And this line is debatable, sure, but saying any words are just free speech? To escalate the example, Hitler giving the order to exterminate the jews was just free speech?
My real point here is that this discussion specifically has been so thoroughly debated by brilliant people that I have trouble understanding why this hasn't been simply closed as proven like we do in math. Eventually you reach a level of argument where there is simply nothing left. We have reached it. Curtailing speech and thought simply never works as intended and always brings greater harms than the alternative.
> I am very much pro free speech, but I do draw the line with implicit or explicit threats of violence. And this line is debatable, sure, but saying any words are just free speech?
Hard to say without evidence of the intent and records of the context.
> Hitler giving the order to exterminate the jews was just free speech?
That is clear but. It was directly ordering murder.
Direct calls to violence have been crimes for a long time, so has conspiracy to organise violence. Hate speech laws go far beyond that.
Larger challenges to the immune system, and perhaps those who could not handle this load died off or left over the generations? Selection pressure should be familiar to those in CS.
No the previous poster had the world I was thinking of. It's interesting the mental hoops people will go through to think it's anything else. Modern medicine is really an ideology, and a religion.
What innovation? Eliminating these positions harms nothing and is just part of the standard propaganda campaign we always see whenever anything DoD related gets looked at sideways.
One of the DSS’ main responsibilities was to introduce fast track technology during national security incidents to help the Pentagon to quickly react to developing situations.
While DSS responsibilities will be passed on to another department, it is unclear how long it will take for the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office to assume DSS responsibilities - potentially putting the security of the Pentagon at risk.
That only happened because they needed some show trials to pacify people. A few were picked to take the fall and the rest were quietly brought to universities and government labs all across western powers. The United States has a proud tradition of totally ignoring all the agreements that came out of those trials.
> Which people? The Europeans were occupied or liberated under effectively caretaker governments.
They were occupied but they weren't entirely busy: while "low" people were happy to kill ex-Nazi collaborators themselves, it's the post-war governments (all of them, USA's included) who needed, with those trials, to manifest a re-establishment of the rule of law once again. 80 years later we can see it's been a hypocrite farce in every part of it, but it saved lives, those that were worth of living, although spared Nazis, fascists and sometimes communists too.
> who needed, with those trials, to manifest a re-establishment of the rule of law once again
Do you have a source for this having been the motivation?
I’m admittedly most familiar with the French and American perspectives. Those weren’t concerned with pacification but creating an international sense of the rule of law and legal basis for the occupation and restructuring of those societies.
This is a claim without evidence and simply not true. There is no argument that private organizations are perfectly efficient. Rather, that there are built in feed back loops that drive towards efficiency. This includes bankruptcy as ultimate conclusion in some cases.
Government on the other hand, has no such feedback loops and misaligned incentives which produce enormous fraud, waste, and abuse. There is no example of government being more efficient at any activity. Pick one, and there is a counter example in private industry doing it better for less.
