Urist

Yikes.

If you say so, daddy 🤠

Individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence are horrible, but not nearly the same as sexual violence employed on scale through genocidal concentration camps, which is claimed by US propaganda machines. Individual incidents of sexual violence unfortunately happen everywhere, and pretending otherwise is wilful ignorance of an endemic problem for the purpose of, what I have to assume is, an underlying agenda. Stop moving the goal post and stop using reductive argumentation to score cheap shots at China. If China really is as bad as claimed, which I am not categorically refuting, then make the proper case for it.

No, but I am not the one making statements. I only asked for sources that supported those made by others.

Yes. Though serious human rights violations are not the same as genocide and concentrations camps, as both the above poster and Victims of Communism Foundation wants us to believe.

That means in no way that those violations are acceptable.

I thought it was Morgoth, a valar and not an elf, who made them. In any case it twists the causal relationship because the goblins subsequently make their own pitiful conditions. I do not condone the terminology even if solely on the basis of how reductionist it is. Since a government is, in its pure form, only a body of people, you can translate trust between people and trust between a government if it is sufficiently representative.

Okay, so I never wanted to say that this was unique to Scandinavia. The important part was how we have a a lot of trust based systems (which of course probably exists elsewhere too, but not everywhere) that are really formative for how we make policy and implement it.

This trust should translate to trust to other people, but this has been eroded away for some time because the social contract is being violated.

Most importantly with respect to elf/goblin part: I found that distasteful and resent the implication that I said anything to that degree. I do not think people are fundamentally different, only that the conditions (material basis and social superstructures) that they find themselves in allow for and promotes certain kinds of actions and ways of being.

Could be I am being dense, but I do not understand what you are saying at all.

As a case study, we did this in 1988 with a smoking law that was incrementally improved with great success. It was controversial at the time, but is now generally regarded as such an obvious policy: no smoking in or around public transport, in bars and restaurants etc..

For all those that think this is the government overstepping with an unenforceable law, you are not grasping the intent correctly. Declaring that we have democratically decided to have an age limit for social media means that we have laid the groundwork for collective action. This means that suddenly schools, parents, teenagers themselves, etc. all have a reason and a mandate for keeping young people off platforms that we believe to be detrimental to their development and well-being. True democratic culture lies not in bourgeoisie domination (as many Americans like to believe), but rather in mutual trust and cooperation in order to solve common and big problems.

Probably networks where users post personal data in conjunction with chat features. Obviously, Wikipedia is not social media in this regard and neither is a mailing list.