The UN report is not “well-meaning.” It’s an effort to use the hysteria of privileged Western women to slip through global censorship in service of autocrats and oligarchs at home and abroad. The people pushing it are not good people who are going too far. They’re awful, horrible people exploiting useful idiots.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
The UN report is not “well-meaning”Malcolm Hutty (London) · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · Privacy & Panopticon · Slogans & Quotations September 30th, 2015 |
 15 comments to The UN report is not “well-meaning” |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
What UN report? What global censorship? (As if global censorship would be a good thing?)
Follow the links 😉
Here, Thailover.
Could somebody, please explain to me why those women who think they are harassed online do not avoid the social media altogether? Why Zoe Quinn “sat for two weeks in a chat room silently recording them plotting how they would [drive her to kill herself]” Does she not have anything else to do?
Useless idiots!
Well it just goes to show, to some degree, that the UN wishes to give credence to leftist political agendas. Feminists are notorious for not giving a public shit about the abuse of women when that abuse is normalized in culture outside the US. The reason is obvious to me. It’s because feminism has nothing to do with the welfare of women and everything to do with feigning victimhood in the quest for more and more political power in the “west”, i.e. in the US, UK, and anywhere else where people care about the opinions of the shrill set. ‘Where need is measured by how much personal offense one can publically appear to muster. You know….just as long as you’re not an older white male with an OK income. Then no one cares if you’re offended. You’re one of those damned ableists. LOL
I think this article has an interesting take on the issue.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/
The only proper answer to such feminista lunacy is “piss off, dears”.
As for the Dictators and Tyrants Boys Club we laughingly call the UN…
Mr Reynolds is correct.
So are the comments.
The UN is never “well-meaning”, whatever it does.
But Laird! Don’t the vast majority of the Member Nations mean well for themselves?
@mojo: Indeed. But the people in charge won’t be saying “piss off…”, they’ll be thinking “beneficial crisis…”
Speaking as a resident of a housing co-op (and therefore both a landlord and tenant), I see the relation between landlord and tenant as being badly entangled and not simply resolvable by assertions of “property rights”. That’s why it is hedged round with legal protections for both sides.
In other areas of economic activity, intangible goods are recognized. The continuity of an arrangement has value, and it’s lopsided for either party to disrupt it abruptly.
The situation can also be asymmetrical. Being compelled to change one’s residence is usually a substantial hardship, much more than losing a tenant is to a landlord.
What is remarkable here is that the municipality seems to think it is appropriate to inflict this hardship on a local citizen of good standing for the benefit of strangers. It is “telescopic philanthropist” without the telescope.
Rich, I assume you had intended this comment for the “In Germany,…” thread, but since it’s here I’ll respond here, too.
I don’t disagree with your description of the landlord-tenant relationship, or with the fact that the law* provides certain protections to tenants; that’s why I prefaced my earlier comment with the disclaimer “[a]ssuming that the lease terms were observed,…”. However, once those legal requirements have been duly followed, what remains simply resolves down to “property rights”. I stand by my comments.
* I should note here that I only know US law, not German law, which might indeed vest broader rights in tenants than I am familiar with.
Rich: Good point, with one or two niggles. Last para: Absolutely. And especially when in point of fact people here are building real houses out of containers, specifically by choice.
Um, did you perhaps mean this comment to go to the next discussion, “In Germany, they are only obeying orders…”?
Are you still allowed to say ‘n*ggle’? Unless you are one? Everyone knows that the ‘n*ggle’ word really means ‘n*gger’! You’re a racist! Call the thought police, right now!