drewofdoom

And here’s the other argument we hear all the time. “This bill doesn’t fix everything, so it’s pointless and should be dropped.”

Drinking in a car is illegal, but how would an officer be able to tell if there are passengers drinking behind tinted windows? If the driver has booze in his or her or their yeti, how would a cop know? Since the cop can’t know, drinking in cars should be legal, even for the driver.

That’s basically what you’re arguing.

Sometimes a bill is stripped down in order to pass with conservatives or moderates. Sometimes a bill is a trial balloon for what you really want to pass. Sometimes a bill addresses a specific issue, and that it doesn’t fix some other issue is just moot.

And sometimes you have to walk before you run.

Nobody is going to make you vote one way or another, but please recognize the following:

The United States is currently a two party system. It sucks. We need to push for more ranked choice voting, as well as direct popular vote.

However, until we’re able to achieve something that makes this parties viable, we will continue to have issues with the right wing getting undue influence in our politics.

Vote with your heart, but make sure that you’re okay with another Trump presidency of you decide not to vote for Biden.

Keep in mind as you do so that more than one state had enough votes for Jill Stein that if they had gone to Hillary, Trump never would have become president.

We should have viable parties outside of the two not great to horrible parties we have now. But that’s simply not the way our government works as it stands now.

Last thing: you’ve become a single issue voter. This is the lefty equivalent of only caring about abortion and ignoring literally everything else. Politics is complicated, and I personally find single issue voters incredibly shortsighted and lazy.

LOL, “I’m willing to listen to reasoning, but only if you format it in a way that I’m willing to read.”

For real, though, fewer guns means fewer gun crimes. The whole ‘then only outlaws will have guns’ is really a myth. Statistics have shown over and over again that the vast majority of criminals who purchase guns do so legally. If they can’t purchase one locally, they just go a state over where the laws are lax. The whole ‘black market’ gun stores thing is just a false argument.

The idea that a ‘good guy with a gun’ will make everyone safer is also pretty well debunked. Just look at John Hurley - the ‘good guy with a gun’ who was posthumously branded a hero after he was shot by the police.

Guns are inherently unsafe. We’re never getting rid of them in military applications, but any reasonable restrictions for private ownership should be a no-brainer.

All the arguments for ‘private gun ownership makes us safer’ fall apart under any scrutiny. So does the constitutional argument. The only real, provable argument you have is that your personal freedom to own a killing machine is more important to you than public safety.

There are serious concerns regarding potential genocide, and Netanyahu has always been a problematic, right-wing leader that flirts with authoritarianism. I would agree with you on that front, and it’s perfectly fine to draw parallels to other authoritarian regimes.

However, it shouldn’t take much to realize to that accusing a Jewish nation of being actual Nazis is not only insensitive, it’s antisemitic.

We can criticize Israel for very real issues. There is absolutely no reason to invent new ones.

You got it! We all need a little reminder to take context into account sometimes. And I do appreciate what you were trying to do, which is promote privacy. It’s a laudable goal, and one that I encourage you to continue. Just remember to meet people where they are, instead of where you want them to be. ;)

I think you misunderstood what they are trying to convey.

Yes, it’s quick and easy to install (privacy respecting alternative). But to even get to the point that you recognize that you need that alternative is a time commitment as well. They are so busy trying to stay alive and support themselves that they don’t have the extra mental registers to devote to keeping up with privacy implications of popular software.

Not to mention, some software now suffers from IE6-itis, except this time with chromium. So if a user encounters one of those issues on an important site, they’re more likely to drift over to the chromium side again. That friction alone causes more hardship for a person in their situation than simply giving up some privacy for convenience.

They’re also not even making excuses. They’re simply telling you what the point of view is in their world.

Your current approach presents a holler-than-thou attitude that is rude and off-putting. Ultimately, it’s not your job nor mine to chastise them for their choices. If they’re reading this thread, that shows interest in the topic.

Allow them to discover it for themselves (with guided encouragement and assistance if requested) instead of being guilted into a decision. That will have a much more long-lasting impact.

I see the method you attempt all over the Internet, and it always has the same effect of contributing to a toxic, elitist culture. IMHO, that needs to stop if we have any chance of changing more minds to be privacy-aware.