I don’t think you understand my point: what part of your argument justifies ICE bringing harm to this woman?

I will allow you only those tools you give to the Nazis currently in charge. What are you going to let them use against us?

Do you truly believe that those calling for oppression

Whatever tool of oppression you are going to use is the exact same tool that will be used against you.

Paine’s message is “destroy those tools so nobody can use them”.

Popper’s message is “use these tools until you face no oppression”.

Popper was a fascist.

“Becoming her,” would be attacking her because of where she was born, or skin color, or religion, or sexuality. We should attack her intolerance.

Parent comment wasn’t attacking her intolerance. Parent comment was wishing her harm.

Furthermore: “Religion” should not be a protected class.

They deserve the ICE treatment.

As are you: You are wishing harm on her, not on her intolerance. This is the exact distinction I was trying to highlight.

Thomas Paine understood the problem.

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Karl Popper’s philosophy calls for directly and actively suppressing the people you and I deem “intolerant”. The fundamental problem with his philosophy is that the Nazis are already in charge. Any method you use to suppress “the intolerant”, you give to the Nazis. It goes straight into their hands for them to use against the people they deem “intolerant”. Popper asks you to forge the tools of your own demise.

Thomas Paine’s philosophy breaks the cycle. He opposes fascism in general. When you instill Thomas Paine’s values in the general populace, you discredit yourself in their eyes as soon as you call for suppressing anyone.

Fascism that you happen to agree with is still fascism. Popper’s actual paradox is that he was a fascist.

Those who want to hurt others … deserve to be hurt themselves.

…

May she get [hurt].

…

Yes, I stripped out some very important words, but those words don’t actually change the underlying problem: we are each wishing harm befall other people.

She wants people hurt; we want people hurt. We’re all getting exactly what we say we want.

By all means, marvel at her stupidity and bigotry, but please stop short of becoming her.

Bigots getting what they deserve. Cry me a river.

Everyone is getting what this bigot deserves. Don’t gloat. Their misfortune is ours as well.

You can seem reasonable and rational when you distinguish between your opponent’s truths and your opponent’s lies. John McCain earned a lot of respect when he rejected an attack on Obama and pointed out that Obama was a decent person and family man who merely disagreed with McCain on some political issues.

If you don’t want your opponent to appear reasonable and rational, don’t give them opportunity. Lie about everything, all the time. Lie when the truth sounds better. Lie so much that they never have the opportunity to do anything except call you a liar. Lie so much that your opponent loses credibility every time they rebut one of your lies.

Related: Gish Gallop

I shut it off the first time I tried to watch it. Seems like the first half of the premier could have been a flashback in season 2.

The screws don’t even reach through the drywall?

There are a wide variety of exotic materials with exceptional strength and/or toughness. I think Graphene would have similar characteristics, if it could be formed into the weapons we see on screen.

Syncthing

Self-hosted. Open source. Your data stays on your own devices. Creates a shared folder on your laptop and your phone. Move a file into that folder on your laptop, and syncthing pushes it to your phone.

Well, we’re pissing off the right people.

Everyone forgets the next line:

But if you try sometime, you’ll find you get what you need.

It’s a little clunky, but KryptEY is an on screen keyboard that can encode/decode messages. The encoded messages can be transmitted over any service.

OP is asking how to prevent abusers from seeing OPs content.

“Blocking” the abuser prevents OP from seeing the abuser’s content. “Blocking” does not prevent the abuser from seeing and interacting with OP’s content.

“Blocking” does not achieve OP’s objective.

You’re assuming that literally every workplace is a surveillance panopticon.

Relative to the degree of surveillance possible when the sabotage handbook was written, “every” workplace is, indeed, a surveillance panopticon.

We have developed and propagated a wide variety of tools for identifying, tracking, and eliminating the kind of production inefficiencies contemplated by the Simple Sabotage manual. The degree of accountability a modern worker faces is several orders of magnitude greater than that of the 1940’s worker. Even the smallest businesses now have access to logistical and accounting systems and services that couldn’t possibly exist back then.

I didn’t “assume” this level of surveillance. That degree of surveillance is a simple fact.

Never worked in a motor pool or warehouse, i see

Both, actually.

This discussion stems from these comments:

What if i stayed, acting like i worked but not really doing anything? Blocking a Nazis spot, taking my salary out of their budget. Maybe even sabotaging. Lets all do that, collectively. Covering eachother by telling how good a job we are doing and so on…

and

he Simple Sabotage Field Manual actually has a lot of recommendations for this. Here’s a part of it, just to give you an idea (in a spoiler block because it’s loooooong)

The premise here is “keep going to work, but do more harm than good”. If you get caught, you fail. If you get fired, you fail. If you are unable to cause greater harm than you produce, you fail. Meanwhile, the value of your labor (the job you have to keep doing to maintain your cover) is 6 to 10 times more valuable than that of your great grandfather. You’re producing 6 to 10 times as much as him; you need to be able to negate a commensurate amount of production, and you need to do it in a much more closely supervised environment. You have to do far more to look like a good employee, and in doing so, you’re setting the example for other workers to also look good at their jobs.

Sure, anyone can overtly sabotage a motor pool or warehouse and cause damage far in excess of a worker’s productivity. But that breaks the premise of the discussion. We aren’t talking about overt. We are talking about covert acts. We are talking about a long-term inside job.

The kind of sabotage conceived of in the Simple Sabotage Field Manual is a pipe dream 80 years later. It is not feasible. The harm a typical worker can expect to cause a modern enemy is a fraction of the productivity that enemy can continue to extract from that worker.

That would be terrible for their recruiting metrics.

Well, it’s a story that glorifies cops, and it completely fails to mention ACAB.