> The United States uses its natural resources to wreak havoc on the world, why shouldn't countries gifted with Geography not push their advantage? Particularly when there is no world order
You can push an advantage, but the whole "no world order" issue will result in severe repercussions if you start to mess with the wrong people. This is not unique to America.
> US bombs anyone it wishes whenever it wants?
Oh please.
> Why should Iran play nice when all it got in return is US aggression?
Iran playing nice? Are you serious? You know that it's possible to criticize America while not backing a government that has killed at least 40K of its own citizens _this year_. Acting like Iran and its government are somehow passive in global conflicts is insane.
> According to Kerry, Netanyahu had presented presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden with plans to attack Iran, all of whom refused, before he received an affirmative response from current US President Donald Trump.
I mean, between bombing fishermen, Iran during negotiations (twice), kidnapping president, threatening Greenland, supporting far right worldwide, supporting Putin, supporting genocide in Gaza a lot more then any other country, supporting far right where possible ...
The fact is, Iran was not attacking Hormuz. Iran was abiding international agreeemets which USA broken. Iran is not nice country, but they had policy of strategic restraint and did not even responded to first negotiation bombing.
The biggest threat to global stability right now is USA. Because the country is violent, crazy and still have a lot of power.
Iran is far from innocent and did respond to the 2025 attacks by launching missiles so not sure why you’re claiming otherwise. Iran has been lying about nuclear ambition for decades and funding terrorist groups. Do you want another crazy country to have a nuclear weapon? Russia and DPRK already threatening everyone with nuclear
> You can push an advantage, but the whole "no world order" issue will result in severe repercussions if you start to mess with the wrong people. This is not unique to America.
You don't have to tell me. America and Americans are feeling the effects of no world order in our diesel prices. For the record, I am in favor of having a world order with international law that is enforced and applied to all countries *equally*.
> Oh please.
Great argument. /s
> Iran playing nice? Are you serious? You know that it's possible to criticize America while not backing a government that has killed at least 40K of its own citizens _this year_. Acting like Iran and its government are somehow passive in global conflicts is insane.
Get off your moral high horse. I am an American, my issue is with the AMERICAN government. I am not condoning what Iran does or did to its people. What they did is their business. Does not justify what we did to them and have been doing to them for ages.
Why is Iran not allowed to have nuclear capability when Israel is allowed? Why is our president a pedophile? Why does our government protect other pedophiles? Why is corruption legal in America? Why do we pay for the genocide in Gaza? Why do we support the deranged Israeli state militarily and financially?
> Acting like Iran and its government are somehow passive in global conflicts is insane.
Our government is bought and paid for by foreign entities like AIPAC and corporations the people be damned. Do you think this gives China/Russia just cause to bomb America?
America is the most belligerent nation in the world, all you have to do is take your head out of the sand and count the number of wars America has been in in the last 50 years.
Any data that personally identifies information about an individual is personal data.
That is not an opinion. That is a fact. It's not public information, and anyone arguing that is categorically, provably, wrong.
The entire country of Sweden can collectively come together and decide that 1+1=3, and I would give that about as much thought as these semantic games around private and personal data.
It is considered personal data by the likes of the EU, the issue however a pesky little thing called the Swedish Constitution, specifically chapter 2 of the "Freedom of the Press Act" which basically states, in very simple terms:
1. Everyone(1) shall be entitled to have free access to official documents.
2. Official documents are all(2) documents held and produced by the authorities.
(1)=Everyone includes everyone in the world, you do not have to live in Sweden or be a citizen and you do not have to identify yourself.
In short, most government databases are databases of "official documents", including the citizenship registry maintained by the tax authorities.
Downside: All the mundane information about you is public property; address, birthdate, tax records, school grades, drivers license, passport photograph, martial status, court cases and pretty much everything else you can't think of.
Yeah, you can either assume your worldview is the only one that exists, then seemingly not understand why certain decisions are made or how things work elsewhere, and everything looks stupid and doesn't make sense to you. Or you can try to understand things from other perspectives, and maybe actually understand the reasoning behind it and what it means.
What is and isn't personal data is subjective, regardless what "truth" you believe you're sitting on. I won't claim you're right/wrong as there is no such concept for subjective things, I suggest if you want to understand instead of wave your hands around or whatever you're doing, you'd try to see things from another's perspective and forgo dogmas.
> What is and isn't personal data is subjective, regardless what "truth" you believe you're sitting on
Ontological games are just that - games. Personal and public data is not an opinion, and it's not subjective.
I legitimately think that it's harder to have a coherent definition of a chair than to define personally-identifying vs anonymous data, and pretending otherwise is stupid.
The impression that I get from this comment is the idea that society and culture moves "forward," whatever that means, and therefore stability is holding back society. Sure, there's short-term pain in collapse, but what rises from the ashes will be better than before.
This is absolutely not the case. It's more than likely that whatever rises out of the *hellscape* of a societal collapse will be worse than what was there before.
The collapse of Rome did not lead to a better Rome. It was hundreds of years of suffering and death. In fact, the stability of Rome is what allowed for it to reach its peak over hundreds of years - something that was undeniably good for its citizens.
The obvious answer here is "the one that you hate." Or, the Christian god of Abraham.
The preamble is not subtle: "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."
Now, legally/philosophically speaking, the Canadian concept of free-speech is laughably weak, as is all Canadian rights. Specifically, section one clearly states that rights are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Effectively, if the government decides that you're "not reasonable," you have no rights.
The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God, where the idea is that the government is to uphold the existing divine rights afforded to all human beings, as opposed to the British system of which Canada (and the rest of the common-wealth is based off of) is a part of, where the government _grants_ the rights.
Another example of this is the British crown, in which authority is given by God. Many of the older cities derive their local authority in the same way. If I recall correctly, I believe that the city of London is so old that they actually mixed it up, and derive theirs from "time immemorial."
> The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God
No, the legal system is not; there are non-legal documents which claim both of those things, but being subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” is very much how the US elgal system treats them. There is even, in federal Constitutional case law, an established, gradated system of tests (rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny) depending on which right is at issue and for whom it is being limited as to whether there is sufficient justification.
I would consider this a positive. I'm not interested in a company that wants to prevent you from using a tool that you're paying for.
The value of the internet is that people can share whatever they want, and use software how they want. This will mean that some people will abuse that. This is the tradeoff of a free society.
They're explicitly pointing out that the US (and most of the western world) has abandoned the manufacturing sector of their economy, outsourcing work that used to employ millions of people to the developing world.
This is a trade-off that can benefit both countries, but, it is wise to consider both WHO benefits from this, and what the LONG-TERM implications of this entails. It's great for an investor class in America that has the capital to create factories in China, and it's great for China to take USD and start to employ their workforce. But, the question is whether or not this is actually a good thing for the American worker.
The rust-belt would certainly have an opinion on this. My father was a factory worker that was able to support a family on a single income, and when that manufacturing plant closed, it absolutely destroyed the finances of my family.
You're conflating the goal with the approach. If the goal is to bring back or grow US manufacturing, the question is whether the current tariffs are an effective way to accomplish that relative to their trade offs. From the evidence so far, the historical research, and most economic analysis, the case doesn't look particularly strong. We haven't seen a meaningful revival in manufacturing employment, and even analyses that project some growth in manufacturing find that it comes with substantial costs elsewhere in the economy, including higher input and consumer prices, weaker growth in other sectors, and lower overall GDP.
I personally believe that strategic tariffs should be used to protect our national interests, including providing meaningful employment.
This administration has no interest in strategic tariffs. Instead, they are made overbroad (50% on everything from Canada vs, say, cheap imported steel) and they are made and removed capriciously (tariffs on English whisky dropped after King Charles' visit to the White House).
If Trump really wanted to bring your dad's factory job back, he'd specifically target whatever industry he was working in AND ideally spend the tariff money boosting that industry. This is precisely the strategy countries like Japan used to reach first world status.
Instead Trump uses tariffs like a cudgel -- much closer to what the XKCD comic depicts. There is no chance his tariffs will lead to your father's factory ever being reopened, as that would require, at the bare minimum, a tariff that investors know will stay in place for years, as opposed to one that could be lifted with the visit of a charismatic member of nobility.
[...wanted to bring your dad's factory job back, he'd specifically target whatever industry he was working in AND ideally spend the tariff money boosting that industry.]
Which was more or less the intent of the CHIPS and Science Act for the semiconductors industry.
The chips act used tax dollars and subsidies to incentivize companies to build here. This and tariffs on semis are not much different the only difference is with a tariff you only pay the tax when you buy imported goods
Subsidies ensure a certain sector has money. CHIPS pays for semiconductor fabs no matter what. Tariffing foreign semiconductors doesn't ensure there will be money for semiconductor fabs here - there could just be no semiconductors at all.
There will not be zero semiconductors. Tariffs incentivize domestic production by raising imported prices allowing our industries to be competitive. There is no world where the military and industry just don’t have processors anymore they will be forced to invest locally that’s THE point of tariffs traditionally (see: the us after its founding)
Oh, I agree that the way that the tariffs are currently being levied is embarrassing on a national scale. Also on the fact that meaningful economic change won't happen when these tariffs will disappear/re-appear at the drop of a hat.
It's also worth pointing out that while, yes, there is 50% tariff on Canadian goods, this only effects ~5% of imported goods, meaning 95% of the Canadian imports are unaffected by this nonsense.
It's also worth pointing out that some of these tariffs actually are being used to help build out US industry, like the CHIPS act.
I don't think that we disagree on anything here, haha
Simply add a setting to the phone for the technologically illiterate and/or young and old.
I can't even imagine how locked down and terrible the internet would be if we had this rhetoric around in the 90s.
reply