aptidude187's comments

The number 1 choice of criminals is still and will always be fiat. It doesn't require any sophisticated tools or knowledge and is accepted everywhere.

The 'crypto is for criminals' narrative has been debunked so many times, but if you still need convincing just look how crime infested traditional banking is in comparison: https://youtu.be/f8iPIV9cBAs

Same for traditional banking + if you happen to be a journalist ( or whatever ) living under an oppressive regime, they can freeze your assets on a whim, because you criticised the wrong people. If someone still prefers trusting a central authority, for whatever reason, they can still use something like coinbase.

>I linked an article on Wikipedia in response to someone’s question. It’s hardly Chinese propaganda. Really?

What kind of absurd bait and switch is that? I am talking about your propaganda right above. You are omitting years of oppression and terrorism against the uyghur people by the ccp + their genocide while dishonestly highlighting the resistance as the terrorism. That's like saying "yea but the jews tried to kill hitler with bombs, that's terrorism" while omitting the context of what was happening to the jews. What kind of childish mind games are you playing, smh...

>You're really going to double down on the idea that the youtube comment section is some bastion of intellectual greatness?

No, I have never described it as some "bastion of intellectual greatness", but as place where people can freely exchange ideas and formulate criticism. That's why you don't post your non arguments there, because they don't hold up to any scrutiny. You on the other hand are doubling down on your deceptive rhetoric by concentrating on anything other than something specific in the content of the video. I hinted to it once and I will say it again, you are acting in bad faith and are clearly deceptive.

>And "What The Bleep Do We Know" made tens of millions of dollars (which is worth way more then 62k likes, but instead millions of people paying to watch it). It's still a load of horse crap.

That's again a terrible comparison. How much something made is not the same as a video on a public platform open to criticism from anyone who is willing to offer criticism in an open comment section. Deniers like yourself can't provide any argument which would hold up to scrutiny that's why you here making hand wavy allegation without engaging anything in specific.

>62k likes on youtube is not some high barrier of truth to clutch your pearls about. Go look at the like count of flat earth videos for another example.

Compare the ratings on such videos and the comments, it's not even remotely on the same level. Your comparisons are dishonest and reek of desperation. You are not addressing the arguments in the video, because you can't, that's why you resort to deceptive rhetoric.

>I'm pointing out that it's using well known techniques to make people seem like they're saying the opposite of what they're actually saying, while infusing the whole argument with emotional impact unrelated to what's being said.

Nonsense. You are again making vague allegations without specifying anything in particular. Your deceptive rhetoric is ineffective.

>As I said originally, the OP would be better off not using a documentary that doesn't use techniques known for telling lies via editing.

As I said originally, you would be better of not trying to defend the ccp's genocide with deceptive vague, hand wavy rhetoric thinking that people are too stupid to see through your dishonest talking points.

>I'd suggest you look at how documentaries like "What the Bleep Do We Know" and "The Principle" are created out of editing together unrelated emotionally impactful set pieces and out of context statements from authorities and otherwise valid sources.

That's a false equivalency and doesn't apply to this very well researched and excellently presented mini documentary. If that were the case it wouldn't have received over 62000 likes and over 1 million views, so don't insult people's intelligence with your pseudo intellectual 'critique' by making hand wavy allegations without pointing out anything specific to which it actually applies in the content.

>This video is using all the same editing techniques as you would to push geocentricism and make it look like Michio Kaku is onboard with it. That's why they include crap like a The Winter Soldier from Marvel being interrogated and random clips from Mulan, while giving quotes that can't use an entire sentence of before being forced to use a jump cut.

Wow you don't like the editing, could you be more shallow and desperate in your defence of the ccp's genocide? The video is excellent in its approach to deliver an important topic in an entertaining and engaging manner, that's why it has successfully reached a greater audience. Your 'criticism' is a joke.

Well if people like you spread pro ccp talking points then I see absolutely no reason why he shouldn't repeatedly post the evidence dismantling your propaganda. The absurdity is that China's reign is a literal reign of terror and misinformation as we already saw in Hong Kong and throughout history, not only in Xinjiang, but in their own territories (Tiananmen Square for instance) or dystopian surveillance and oppression, so accusing them of "terrorism" is just the pot calling the kettle black.

You'd be better off not shilling for the ccp by attacking the validity of the video with petty remarks instead of specifying what exactly you are missing sources for. Most of the content was from well known research and is visible directly in the video itself.

>If it is possible, by a simple intellectual process, to make the choice to renounce religion, it can then not possibly be integral or essential to your identity. That's completely antinomic. You either don't understand those words (and funnily accuses me of misusing English), or are being dishonest.

By a simple InTeLlEcTuAl pRoCeSs, again, since you lack basic reading comprehension skills, for some people religion is an integral part of their identity, that's not even up to debate. Something can be an integral part of your identity and still change for various reasons, nothing of that will change the fact that it is an integral part of some people's identity. Your embarrassing attempts to defend your absurd claim is just pure comedy.

>But I realized you're most likely just a troll. My bad.

Says the guy who desperately clings to 1 of the many arguments that were made ignoring all others and is not even able to make sense on that front. Embarrassing.

>It is telling though to see how you kept avoiding the concept that by apostasy I was referring to the honest personal choice of people renouncing their religion for intellectual honesty (someday they believe then, maybe after self debating the absurdity of the idea, they don't anymore), but you kept insisting instead that it must be because someone or something forces them to. It really shows how narrow minded you must be.

You are heavily misquoting and distorting yet again. I said that apostasy can occur for various reasons many times, yet you make this completely bizarre and far fetched case just to inflate your terribly false argument.

>Keep to your fascist trolling if that pleases you, your moral values are not on the right side of history.

Says the guy who defends french fascism and persecution of minorities based on fake french values, which only serve the secular elite. The barbary of french colonialism continues, after murdering millions of Algerians and Africans and force their secularism on them, now they try to intellectualise their oppression. France even betrayed the jews and cooperated with the Nazis, delivered them to be murdered, so don't ever talk about being on the right side of history, you never were and never will be.

>Blasphemy laws and similar barbaric values have been successfully fought and repealed in France (that you seem to despise so much) and other countries, they will eventually be everywhere else too.

Nope, wrong. France and its barbaric values are still present in its own blasphemy laws which prohibits denigrating the french flag among other deceptions to not respect its own values, thus violating free speech, but everyone already knows that france has only fake free speech, protecting the rich secular people, but not minorities.

>The fact that apostasy is possible and exists, in France or elsewhere, is precisely the proof that religion is not 'essential'

Straw man. No one denied that apostasy is possible and exists. The claim was that for some religion can be an integral part of their identity and it's also possible that people can change their identities for various reasons including societal pressure, the desire to fit in or any other reason. That doesn't change the fact that religion is an integral part of some people's identity.

>That makes religion far more similar to musical taste (ever heard of Rock'n Roll as a way of life?) than to ethnicity.

Religion is a set of rules and guidelines to live by, so that comparison is moot, but keep pushing absurd arguments to justify your rubbish takes.

Anyway, you ignore and distort arguments beyond recognition and keep babbling utter nonsense. You are a lost cause, so we are done here, have fun debating yourself.

By the way, distracting people who criticise the barbary of the french abuse of satire & free speech laws with blasphemy laws is a cheap move but quite typical.

>It almost feels like you're being misunderstanding and misquoting on purpose.

Says the guy who responds to a fraction of the arguments and makes absurd arguments expecting to be taken seriously.

>Genuinely voluntary apostasy, punished by death, happens. And it's clearly 'not succumbing to social pressure' to do it in countries that criminalize it and punish it by death.[1]

What the hell are you even on about? You make 0 sense. You were talking about apostasy and I merely explained that it's nothing out of the ordinary that people can succumb to social pressure and change their identity, this was very specific in the context of french society. So spare me your islamophobic rants.

>And then you replace 'integral part of your identity' by merely 'part of your identity', however that's the important word you're omitting.

So? You clearly don't understand the english language very well. Integral merely means "important, essential..." and leaving it out doesn't change the essence of the statement. Keep hairsplitting tho.

>However, particular musical genres were never an integral part of my identity the same way people are gay or not, or have a particular ethnical background.

Terrible comparison. A taste in music is not the same thing as a religion which encompasses almost every aspect of your life. Again, terrible terrible comparison.

>Attributing some special powers to a class of mere opinions is wrong, misguided and often used as a tool of oppression.

Yea, you just perfectly described France's abuse and misuse of 'satire' and 'free speech' to discriminate against minorities. France has its own blasphemy laws, although they don't label them as such, they are functionally and consequentially, the exact same. Not to mention what secular France has done in its colonial past, murdering and torturing millions of Algerians and Africans for resisting occupation and opposing secularism. Learn your own history and present before you try to lecture others.

People can succumb to societal pressure and change parts of their identity, doesn't change the fact that it can be a part of their identity.

Out of all points made you pick a single one out and make rubbish arguments. You are not worth my time.

>You're understanding of french values and society, especially of Laïcité [1], couldn't be farther from the trust.

My understanding of the french values is based on evidence, on the things I see and experience and based on the account of french citizens, reports and documented events throughout history.

> Most french people take strongly to "Liberté Égalité Fraternité", and painting the whole country as hostile to minorities is extremely ignorant.

Nothing but lip service, the evidence and daily realities paint a different picture. Again, you are just making assertions without substantiating them, name calling isn't making an argument. And yes, french society as I and many others have experienced is hostile to minorities and patronising on top of that. So you are the one who is extremely ignorant and have the audacity to project your own ignorance on others.

>It is totally false to say that french freedom of speech permits to "constantly harass minorities by mocking them".

Good, because I didn't say that it does permit it, I said that you do it under the guise of freedom of speech, totally different, among other bogus excuses.

>However, satyre of ideas/symbols like religions and prophets is not the same thing as mocking people, and is an integral part of what we call laïcité.

Spare me the hair splitting, insulting and mocking people's integral part of their identity is insulting them too. Furthermore there were cases when Charlie Hebdo Journalist was fired for being 'anti-semitic', while similar attacks on muslims were/are tolerated. There is clear cut islamophobia in french society and unfair application of laws regarding them. Don't insult people's intelligence with your weak vapid justifications.

> You are missing the point that people, in their individuality as human beings, deserve respect but abstract concepts do not.

No, you are missing the point, the amount of harassment under the guise of 'satire' with which secular elites constantly bully and harass minorities is what made french society so polarised and toxic to begin with:

"What the Charlie Hebdo caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad achieved was "not satire," and what they provoked was not "ideas," Finkelstein said.

Satire is when one directs it either at oneself, causes his or her people to think twice about what they are doing and saying, or directs it at people who have power and privilege, he said.

"But when somebody is down and out, desperate, destitute, when you mock them, when you mock a homeless person, that is not satire," Finkelstein said.

"That is, I give you the word, sadism. There’s a very big difference between satire and sadism. Charlie Hebdo is sadism. It’s not satire"

The "desperate and despised people" of today are Muslims, he said, considering the number of Muslim countries racked by death and destruction as in the case of Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen.

"So, two despairing and desperate young men act out their despair and desperation against this political pornography no different than Der Stürmer, who in the midst of all of this death and destruction decide its somehow noble to degrade, demean, humiliate and insult the people. I’m sorry, maybe it is very politically incorrect. I have no sympathy for [the staff of Charlie Hebdo]. Should they have been killed? Of course not. But of course, Streicher shouldn’t have been hung. I don’t hear that from many people," said Finkelstein.

Streicher was among those who stood trial on charges at Nürnberg, following World War II. He was hung for those cartoons.

Finkelstein said some might argue that they have the right to mock even desperate and destitute people, and they probably have this right, he said, "But you also have the right to say 'I don’t want to put it in my magazine ... When you put it in, you are taking responsibility for it."

Finkelstein compared the controversial Charlie Hebdo caricatures to the "fighting words," doctrine, a category of speech penalized under American jurisprudence."

Why is it ok to force kids to remove their hijabs but not ok to force them to do <insert horrible thing>.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_F...

Exactly, now we need schools in Britain to respect women more, instead of persecuting them for wearing skirts that are 'too long'.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jan/12/school-thr...

>As a French who went to french public schools, I take exception to that, as it is totally false and offensive.

Last time I checked the french people couldn't care less about something being 'offensive' or not, since it's covered by freedom of speech, that's why they constantly harass minorities by mocking them, their religion and prophets, all in the name of freedom of speech. Forcing girls to remove their hijab is evidence that it's your narrative that is biased and false. Justifying that discrimination is just further evidence of the internalized islamophobia, which has grown to such a degree that you don't even register blatant discrimination as such.

>France's egalitarian principles

Yea those 'egalitarian principles' that somehow only protect the secular elite, while minorities, using their religion against them, are constantly mocked and bullied in the media and discriminated against in targeted unfair laws - banning the hijab. Those 'egalitarian principles' have to manifest themselves in reality, but they didn't, up till now, they have only proven to be a charade.

It works perfectly well. The only thing that stands is your bias.

Thanks for clarifying. I still don't see your point. Fact is that the hyperbolic statement that one is punished for 'just existing' is false. The arguments dealing with that are quite simple & concise, so what exactly are you arguing for?

> jedimind wrote the response I'm quoting. No confusion.

I disagree, much confusion. I can't see any hyperbole in the statement you quoted.

>In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind who you are defending wrote

You are really confused, it was "LatteLazy" who made the hyperbolic statement, not jedimind.

>So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.

There is nothing bizarre about it, what's bizarre tho is jumping into a discussion without having studied the root issue & the development of the discussion and in consequence failing to understand simple arguments.