History is written by the victors unfortunately and world history gives me little reason to believe things will be different this time around. Part of the point of erasing all these things is quite similar to destroying the past to control the future. But from their perspectives this is all corrupt, immoral, unethical information barely distinguishable ethically or even worse than Mengele’s experimental data. Except even people left of absolute insanity somewhat concede the relative scientific validity of all the data obtained while those ordering the deletions and redactions now have zero authority nor experience in the fields.
It’s a pity that creating anything of value takes at least an order of magnitude more effort than to destroy something, but I suppose this is why we’re funding back-ups and archives of all this data out there.
You are correct, food was exported outside of Ireland during this time period. This time was called the Hungry 40's and crop failures were happening all over Europe. It lead to the Revolutions of 1848. Food was only available at prices that the poor could no longer afford.
Unfortunately the Revolutions of 1848 were violently suppressed. The forces of order were able to exploit the differences between the political reformers and the social reformers.
Nice myth. Food wasn't quite provided for free. You did not get quite even basic rations enough to survive even if you were able to get them, further, due to mass exodus from farming to city, buildings were built there, and you had to wait a really long time, sometimes forever, to get a living space by lot.
Similar with a car - it all operated under severe scarcity.
All countries involved, even East Germany, had these problems.
Workers got either in priority to farmers and further others. Except politicians and connected people got theirs first beyond workers.
And some were able to buy it ahead of the queue.
The magical development in the West was driven by really heavy handed subsidies industrial development on already richer area, which USSR just could not afford, and especially not after funding the high military spending.
That notwithstanding some completely broken experiments done in large scale like attempts to farm the steppes in the middle of nowhere, a lot of which was funded by export from the few basket countries which would have otherwise had enough food.
And after a relatively short while, the industrialization effort stalled, a variety of farming related problems appeared due to both mismanagement, bad weather and plagues, countries involved got indebted on bad terms...
I didn't vote but I guess the downvotes are because it calls the parent claim a "myth" and then goes on to agree with it.
The scarcity that made food and housing not free in practice is why monetization (capitalism) ended up being better, which I assume was MikePlacid's point.
Capitalism has problems for sure, but it eliminates scarcity more efficiently than any other system we have tried so far.
Capitalism may share the abundance unevenly, but it still creates it in the first place, which is key.
The problem is not monetization of basic needs, the problem is putting the controlling interest in the hands of a few who do not care about the lives of the many.
This famine happened from the concentration of power, not because food costs money. Democratic land reform solves it, keeping the monetary impetus in play.
The Holodomor was a very similar genocide where farms were collectivized. That didn't stop millions of people from dying from hunger as their own food was taken at gunpoint and exported to other countries.
>That didn't stop millions of people from dying from hunger as their own food was taken at gunpoint and exported to other countries.
The problem was not exactly that, there wasn't food export when there was famine. Communists are not that stupid. All they wanted was to overcome the corporate greed of the peasantry, who often sold food to workers at 2, 3, or 5 times the price, so they fought price gouging on food, determining fair prices, that would allow all the country to be well-fed.
But for some unknown reason in response to that beautiful and righteous policy the peasantry reduced food production, which caused the famine.
I'm not sure if you are mocking the absurdity of the false communist narrative or just repeating it uncritically.
So to be clear: Communists exported food, stolen from the people who grew it, which is very well known, here's one citation from Wikipedia:
> In regard to exports, Michael Ellman states that the 1932–1933 grain exports amounted to 1.8 million tonnes, which would have been enough to feed 5 million people for one year.[16]
Further it wasn't "stupidity" of Communists but rather a deliberate genocide of those considered inferior. They sent groups of soldiers around the countryside to steal more grain as children starved in the streets. It is one of the more horrific acts of brutality in the 20th century, all in service of authoritarianism.
>In regard to exports, Michael Ellman states that the 1932–1933 grain exports amounted to 1.8 million tonnes
That is blatant manipulation. Most of those grain de facto didn't left the country and were used to fight famine. From 1930 there was massive grain import. Moreover, import was considered by Stalin from 1928, but at that time all the statistics showed, that food situation will be fully fixed by fair share from upper parts of peasantry.
>deliberate genocide of those considered inferior
This is literally a conspiracy theory on the level of the Jews starting World War II to exterminate the Europeans.
>They sent groups of soldiers around the countryside to steal more grain as children starved in the streets.
Yeas, and they did that exactly to give that grain to those children.
The fact is, communists with all honesty tried to achieve a fair distribution of necessities to the poorest. But as always leftist's "fair" implies market incentive distortion and as a result hindered production.
The cause of the famine is not the evil communists who took grain from hungry peasants, communists simply tried to take excess food from the rich and give it to the poor. The cause of the famine is the 7-fold drop in food production. And when you have that drop - there inevitable will be mass famine.
Sounds like you are trying to explain away over a million deaths as if it was happening everywhere in Europe and not primarily the British fault.
Fact: in 1847, nearly 4,000 vessels carried food from Ireland to British ports while hundreds of thousands of Irish people died of starvation and related diseases. There was PLENTY of food in Ireland.
FACT: The government refused to intervene in the market to prevent food exports, even as the Irish population faced severe food shortages. Why?
While crop failures were happening across Europe, the impact in Ireland was particularly devastating because of the population's heavy reliance on potatoes. The suggestion that food was only unaffordable for the poor overlooks the fact that the potato blight left many people without any access to their primary food source. WHY was it the only source of food in an abundant growing environment??
Fact: Wages paid on “work programs” for those (un)lucky enough to get on them were too low to purchase food at inflated "famine" prices, leading to widespread starvation.
The export of food from Ireland during this period was a significant factor in the suffering of the Irish people, and it is important to acknowledge the role of British economic policies and the prioritization of profits over humanitarian needs which seems to be a struggle for you.
The way this comment is written reads suspiciously like ChatGPT. And the name of the user has bot in it...
You seem to contradict yourself as well, you say plenty of food, and then it was because of the reliance on potatoes, and then it was the only food source?
Maybe I just dislike comments that insist on saying FACT multiple times.
For anyone else who doesn’t know, Ireland was exporting grain and meat during the famine at the orders of the British. They explicitly let the Irish die if someone else could order the food because Free Trade was perfect and if it wiped out a bunch of undesirables to boot, even better[1]
As you had groups with a wildly different wealth as the Ottaman Sultan and the Choctaws on the Trail of Tears scrounging for anything to spare to feed the starving Irish, their British overlords were shipping away food to anyone who could pay them a penny more.
If it wasn’t an engineered genocide then it’s close as you can get to one imo
There was no real market competition within Ireland. All the farms were owned by an elite mostly British class living in England which was a direct hold over from Feudalism. Regular Irish could only pay rent to this group to farm themselves. Import/exports were controlled by the British shipping and enforced by the military when locals resisted, all in direct coordination with the small amount of landowners. Particularly difficult situation on an island. It was extractive colonialism without a strong equal rule of law or self representation. Calling it laissez faire was just a cover to benefit the British.
> All the farms were owned by an elite mostly British class living in England which was a direct hold over from Feudalism.
I think that’s a misconception-yes, there were a significant number of absentee landowners from England, but they were never the majority - the majority of wealthy Irish landowners lived in Ireland. Only around a third of large Irish landowners lived outside of Ireland.
One issue was that the land-owning upper classes were near exclusively Protestant, while the vast majority of the poor were Catholics-which is not to say no Protestants died in the famine, many did-but, while at the time Ireland was 80% Catholic 20% Protestant, famine deaths were 90% Catholic only 10% Protestant-so a Catholic was 2.25 times more likely to perish in the famine than a Protestant. Even though by the time of the famine, most of the formal legal discrimination against Catholics had been repealed, the consequences of it were still very evident.
Although there were many poor Protestants, the average poor Protestant was still better off (and hence more likely to survive) than the average poor Catholic, having benefited from generations of anti-Catholic/pro-Protestant discrimination.
Protestants also benefited from the greater wealth of Protestant charities - even though many Protestant charities were willing to help Catholics too, most Catholics were fearful to accept their help, viewing it as an inducement to conversion
Some Irish Protestants were descendants of recent immigrants from Britain, others were descendants of Irish converts from Catholicism.
Consider for example, Edmund Burke (the famous conservative philosopher) - he was born in Ireland to a Roman Catholic mother and a Church of Ireland father; his parents raised him Anglican and his sister Catholic - this was not an uncommon compromise for middle class Irish families of the time, discriminatory laws limiting career and education opportunities for Catholics largely didn’t apply to women who were excluded from careers and higher education irrespective of their faith. It is unclear whether or not his father, a lawyer (at a time when Catholics weren’t allowed to practice law) had converted from Catholicism, or if one of his ancestors had - but given Burke’s paternal line came from an old Hiberno-Norman family, descendants of the 12th century English invaders who over the following centuries assimilated to a Gaelic identity, it is obvious that one of his patrilineal ancestors must have switched from Catholicism to Protestantism at some point.
There may have been individuals within the British citizenry who independently did the best moral actions they could in the circumstances, but there's documented evidence that the political body at large and their leadership at best did not care an iota for an any and all deaths in the Irish due to the consequences of their leadership, or at worst actively hoped and planned for the deaths to remove an inconvenient people.
Not that the government would ever do this, but it is technically feasible for them to distribute anonymous digital IDs that verify age without allowing the user to be tracked or identified.
Once the government is issuing digital IDs to grant access to speech you can split that hair however you want I think it's a pretty uncomfortable idea for a lot of people.
Social networks in general should be nation-specific, to ensure that only domestic enemies of the people and similar bad actors can take advantage of them.
Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country, or harvest data from it invites nothing but trouble.
It’s sad that people think this way. As a young child growing up in the 90s in a rural part of a small country, being able to access the “speech” of people around the world via internet forums was a revelation.
Are you really so scared of China that you’d throw that all away?
I think there is an aspect of foreign interference that Americans might be particularly blind to.
Namely, we are engaging in foreign interference towards any country that uses our social media (Mysterious Twitter X, Facebook, Youtube, et al.). Japan's online discourse lives and breathes Mysterious Twitter X, for example. We definitely influence and interfere in their domestic affairs whether anyone likes it or not.
If the sanctity(?) of domestic-only electoral will is paramount, it stands to reason that any and all social media should be legally barred from crossing borders regardless if that even makes internet sense.
If foreign interference in domestic politics is a concern, you absolutely do not want foreign-owned communication channels operating within you. They have every reason to manipulate discourse within them towards specific foreign ends in defiance to domestic interests.
TikTok manipulates discourse everywhere towards Chinese ends, X/Facebook/et al. manipulate discourse everywhere towards American ends.
This is an entirely separate concern from firewalls, which with the way you posited it might as well be a strawman.
Allowing foreigners to broadcast speech into your country is protected by the First Amendment. It's exactly why every American can consume 24/7 PressTV if they choose to
IANAL but I'm not sure if this is accurate. You're, of course, allowed to consume PressTV but AFAIK I don't think there's any First Amendment protections for non-citizens outside of the US.
You’re flatly wrong, and so is vkou. From the text of the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (cut the establishment clause for clarity).
It doesn’t say “congress shall make no law for citizens” or “within the US”.
The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]
That is to say, some guy in not-Americaland does not enjoy First Amendment nor any other Constitutional protections.
> The Constitution derives power from and applies them to the "People of the United States"[1], excluding everyone including even Americans who do not physically exist within US sovereign jurisdiction.[2]
No, I think that "People of the United States" (having "of" rather than "in") can include US citizens physically present outside of the borders. The US government can punish me for illegal things I do outside of the US. If I, a US citizen, go to Britain and kill another US citizen in Britain, I will be subject to murder laws in both Britain and the US, and the US could call for extradition. If I go to Britain and defame a US citizen, the person I defamed can sue me. Likewise for rights, I don't lose my First Amendment rights to criticize the US government when I'm abroad, although the US government would question my allegiance if I send my criticism from Russia.
If you read the links I cited, you would have known that SCOTUS ruled that the full authority of the Constitution only applies as far as incorporated US territories and only to US nationals and citizens (colloquially "Americans").
Unincorporated territories and anything beyond that (ie: foreign countries) does not (and cannot, both legally and practically in the case of foreign countries) enjoy US Constitutional protections.
You are certainly welcome to your opinions, of course, but where legality is concerned the courts clearly say otherwise.
The first section you cited [1] interprets "People of the United States" to mean "nationals and citizens". I don't stop being a citizen when I leave US borders. I previously read the first section but neglected to read the second section, and I have decided to mentally autocorrect "People of the United States" to "United States citizens and nationals who are within US borders".
Now I agree with you almost completely, but I have a nitpick.
The US Constitution protects me from the US government. The second section you cited about losing constitutional rights (such as the right to a jury trial) when leaving US borders suggests to me that formally all of the Constitution's protections go away but informally some protections remain. Consider this excerpt from the second section you cited [2]:
> The court held that, since his trial was conducted by an American court and was, by American standards, basically fair, he was not entitled to the specific constitutional right of trial by jury while overseas.
Legally, why does it matter that the defendant got a "basically fair" trial? To me, it means that defendant still has a right to a "basically fair" trial. So where does that right come from? I think that it comes from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: mostly diminished, but not completely eliminated, for US citizens outside of US borders.
Suppose that I go on vacation to Mexico and send a letter to the White House with the message "Joe Biden can suck an egg. hn_acker, from Mexico". Upon receiving it, Joe Biden signs an executive order declaring that "If hn_acker sends an insult to me from outside of the borders of the United States then hn_acker will be an enemy of the state". Then I send another letter with the same message I sent before. I return to US soil and Joe Biden orders the military to shoot me. The military refuses the order and documents having done so. During any point of my hypothetical scenario, did Joe Biden violate any of my constitutional rights? I think that the answer is yes, Joe Biden as the head of the military violated my First Amendment right to free expression by retaliating to my second letter.
Idk if that’s the case either, but a shell corp which is incorporated in the US easily gets around it.
Though the first amendment does not protect calls to action. Especially if that call includes violence or treason. (Unless you’re specifically Donald Trump)
The ruling suggests that a shell corp might not be quite enough, even though TikTok as a US operating entity is sufficient.
> The Government suggests that because TikTok is wholly
owned by ByteDance, a foreign company, it has no First
Amendment rights. Cf. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open
Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430, 436 (2020) (explaining that
“foreign organizations operating abroad have no First
Amendment rights”). TikTok, Inc., however, is a domestic
entity operating domestically. See NetChoice, 144 S. Ct. at
2410 (Barrett, J., concurring) (identifying potential “complexi-
ties” for First Amendment analysis posed by the “corporate
structure and ownership of some platforms”). The Government
does not dispute facts suggesting at least some of the regulated
speech involves TikTok’s U.S. entities. See TikTok App. 811–
12, 817–18 (explaining that promoted videos are “reviewed by
a U.S.-based reviewer,” that an executive employed by a U.S.
entity approves the guidelines for content moderation, and that
the recommendation engine “is customized for TikTok’s vari-
ous global markets” and “subject to special vetting in the
United States”).
> Nor does the Government argue we should “pierce the
corporate veil” or “invoke any other relevant exception” to the
fundamental principle of corporate separateness. Agency for
Int’l Dev., 591 U.S. at 435–36. We are sensitive to the risk of a
foreign adversary exploiting corporate form to take advantage
of legal protections in the United States. Indeed, the
Government presented evidence to suggest the PRC intention-
ally attempts to do just that. See, e.g., Gov’t App. 33–35
(describing the PRC’s hybrid commercial threat and its
exploitation of U.S. legal protections for hacking operations).
Under these circumstances, however, we conclude that the
TikTok-specific provisions of the Act trigger First Amendment
scrutiny.
Shell corps would have to register as foreign agents, and be surveilled and regulated as such. In the United States, and in most countries around the world, the speech and spending power of such agents is carefully monitored and curtailed.
Any social network should be assumed to be an agent of the government in which it operates from. Facebook, for instance, has a special relationship with the Pentagon, VKontakte with the Kremlin, TikTok with Beijing, etc.
If a foreign rabble-rouser, seeking to disrupt our harmonious society can be banned from entry into the country, why should their ideas be let in through a social network?
Wait... I thought him and his fellow Bungleheads, saw no value in schooling?? Whats the big change in opinion now? (I think i know.. )
Just if nothing else it shows u how silicon valley types can reverse course, while proclaiming they are 100% correct, and will remain 100% correct facing the other direction.
A gentle reminder, that they are mere mortals, and not the gods they think they are after getting high on their own supply for the last decade.
Strange they decided to go back to this story after first saying they knew nothing about it and then saying that they had warned them to evacuate? Well the IDF have said it so it must be true, no need to look into it. Just quote it verbatim. I too am a well paid journalist.
Your idea of Europe is wrong. Where do you get this information from?
Europe likes a lot more free markets and is a lot more conservative then that Americans try to paint it while having their own politicial wars.
This is not how Europe works... Misconception no1: Denmark has no minimum wage. We rely on market forces.
It is truly terrifying to see how the narratives about Europe, and especially my home country, have infested the internet to a point where young people in Denmark actually believe random foreigners online know more about Denmark than their parents.
I’ve never heard of a European healthcare system mass producing its own medication (except in communist countries and their remnants). European healthcare systems achieve lower prices through bulk orders and using the massive market to negotiate lower prices.
They're not radical or activist, because they're Republicans.
If you think the two sides of the above (as split by the conjunction "because") are in conflict or otherwise -- you haven't been paying attention to the last 40 years of the right-wing political resurgence in the United States.
I've been paying attention. Only Republicans are legitimate rulers in the USA. Only Republican policies and favored rights are legitimate in the USA. I was being a little sarcastic to try to emphasize that even though the current SCOTUS majority is ignoring precedent and has freed themselves from logic, they won't be labeled "activist" by any media, because the media lets Republicans frame issues and set agendas.
The Irish term “hard man” is more of a meaning about a persons spirit/ attitude to certain things. It does mean someone you don’t want to mess with or in fact have any sort of dealings with. (unless you can equivalently “nullify” their attitude and there’s only one thing usually that can nullify a “hard man”… and this the cycle begins.
It’s clear (and this is yet another case) that this whole DEI non issue is a fabricated propaganda dog whistle to certain people.
This will go down in American history for all the dreadful reasons it deserves. Absolutely dark and disgusting times America has entered.