By that reasoning, you must think Mitt Romney is God.
Diane Feinstein believes that every American who isn't a cop or politician is a violent criminal who hasn't been caught yet, and thus believes that only cops and politicians such as herself should own firearms... I don't see any conservatives standing up to defend her...
I think what you really meant to say there was "why do conservatives always defend the rights of people I decide not to like?" The answer to which being, they don't, but that's the perception you choose to have based on your particular, subjective view of reality.
So where does ruining a persons life because you saw a video of them doing something legal that you don't like (say, for example, holding an unpopular opinion) fit into your concept of a 'free' society?
FYI, trying to reason your position with an individual who has already decided that they are "right" is as effective as screaming at a brick wall.
Our only hope is that someday these SJWs will become victim to their own practices, and hopefully realize the error of their selfish ways.
So when people are being recorded they should pretend to think some other way?
That's retarded. Maybe instead more folks should put their big girl panties on and realize that other people being opinionated assholes is NOT worth starting a federal case over.
Physically assaulting someone is a crime, deserving of punishment.
Verbalizing your distaste for another person and/or their attitude is not.
This new mentality of "everything I disagree with should be illegal" isn't just part of the problem, its the whole goddamned thing.
Many would consider taking actions that negatively affect another person simply because you've decided you don't like an options they hold to be a real asshole move within itself. So wouldn't that behavior warrant some shaming of its own? Or is hypocrisy allowable now?
If you had your career destroyed by groupthink I bet you'd hold a different opinion on the matter.
Except that the end result wasn't a nicer person, it was that said person lost everything she spent a lifetime working for, because one (very likely out-of-context) statement was surveilled.
So, really, the whole concept is pure bullshit on its face.
In pretty much every single other business, what Uber calls "surge pricing" is referred to as "price gouging," and is illegal.
What's the difference between what Uber is doing today and what a handful of gas stations tried to pull on 9\11\2001? The fact Uber is getting away with it?
Spreading false information isn't trolling, it's slander and/or libel. And if someone is committing a crime that hurts another person, they should rightly and justly be punished by law, not some phpBB plugin.
I feel the same way about commercials and TV theme songs.
More people have "fragile emotional states" these days because they've spent their lives being coddled and/or taught to respond to adversity by becoming a victim. When I was growing up bullies didn't say things on a website, they found you, beat your ass, then bragged about it to the whole school. Fortunately for me, my parents taught me that I was worth more than being some douches punching bag, and the important lesson that the only person who could control how I reacted to other people was me - besides, society isn't going to change because I'm having a hard time. Was it bad? Worse than most of the "whine about it on YouTube" generation could possibly imagine. Did I consider killing myself to end it all? Actually tried and failed a couple times to be honest.
But somehow I survived. Maybe its because I'm made of better stuff than other people, but that sounds. I ike self-aggrandizing bullshit to me. Rather, I believe it's because I realized that I was only a victim of my own self-loathing, and upon that realization learned how to have the confidence to stand up for myself in the face of, for lack of a better term, typical human dickishness.
Trolls (in the traditional sense), are easy enough to avoid - refuse to engage them and they'll eventually get bored and go bother someone else.
This is a key point. No military in the world is going to want a weapon system that they have zero control over.
Powerful despots who want armies who not only won't, but literally can't disobey orders? No matter how incomprehensibly immoral? Oh, very much yes.
Why does it matter if robots are better identifying bad people which was the point of the link.
Because letting the robots make that decision never works out well. Cmon, haven't you seen [insert almost any robot-based scifi here]?