It’s pretty common practice to capture system images from returned employee equipment when they’re fired for cause (at least in the US). But it’s also pretty common for technicians to be forbidden from browsing those files without a very good reason.
The problem with opposing civil rights movements is that reciprocity matters in the real world. People are disinclined to support your rights if they see you as advocating against theirs.
This might have been the case maybe 30 years ago, today's mentality is really all about submission to power, their power. If they say "put a hand on your stomach, one on your head, and turn from right to left singing the International on a single hand", you better do it, or fear being cancelled.
I’m not accepting your assertion as fact. There are currently multiple civil rights movements facing organized conservative resistance.
You can invent whatever moralizing obligation you want, but I don’t think it’s reasonable expect an organized effort from the {$outgroup} community to defend the rights rights of the people who designated them the outgroup.
Existence of such groups is not your original assertion. You stated:
> People are disinclined to support your rights if they see you as advocating against theirs.
By that argument, the Libertarians would be loved by everybody, but they aren't, because it's no longer a discussion on ethics, it's a fight over holly dogma. The ACLU will no longer support people on the Right in the name of Free Speech. Lines in the sand have been dug by the left, and they no longer crosses them. The right, (ie. the MSM's fascist) however do it all the time because they are the most open ones. If you are a gay 1sh amendment absolutist, you aren't gay, you're just a nazi. The ancients Greeks are no longer the bases of our culture/civilization, they're esclavagist.
I suspect China is overestimating the strength of their hand. Their economy is dependent on foreign corporations voluntarily choosing to manufacture there. If they start acting like a third-world kleptostate, they'll be branded as unreliable business partners and have to go back to sorting trash.
China has the 2nd largest (and according to some sources, probably the largest) consumer market on Earth, and is currently, by a large margin, the largest market for Cars, Smartphones, PCs, Fashion, and a host of other product categories. In 2020, China was the only major country where global corporations didn't see a significant decline in sales growth.
China is also, again by far, the largest e-commerce market and the largest mobile payments market on Earth.
I apologize for sounding like an infomercial, but these are basic economic facts that one would expect a reasonably well-read individual to be aware of. I would advise that in future you get better informed before coming here to advertise your ignorance.
>corporations voluntarily choosing to manufacture there
I'm not sure how true that is anymore. Companies trying to manufacture elsewhere have to cope with 101 issues that increase costs. Everything from JIT logistics not working to lack or workers to uncooperative governments. China is getting more expensive and some low skill work is going elsewhere. But for most companies, setting up elsewhere means prices much higher than the market will tolerate.
I think there’s an assumption in there that one shouldn’t condone bombing a nation for invading and illegally occupying one of its neighbors. I’m for that 100%.
Russia's opinion on others' borders is relevant only to Russia.
I think Moscow is part of my estate and that I'm entitled to take as much money as I can from any Russian national I encounter as compensation for Russia's illegal occupation of my house. I don't think that's a crime, so it's not a crime. Is that how this works?
No, under your hypothetical it's still a crime, but it's not admitting to a crime. You haven't pled guilty, you are still asserting a defence to the accusation (that you own Moscow).
If you had a sufficiently powerful military to back up your opinion on the ownership of Moscow, then that would indeed be how it works. International law does not have courts with the same amount of power as "normal" law. If countries are at odds the options are basically a sternly worded letter, economic sanctions or military action. And, of course, the target of such action can strike back in much the same ways.
Understandably, not many countries are willing to enter hostilities with Russia.
Russia does not really need to sanction anyone at the moment, they already have Crimea under their control and no country with a strong enough military cares enough to take it away from them and give it back to the Ukraine.
I don't want to play tit-for-tat but it's "in Ukraine" just like Guantanamo Bay is "in Cuba". So it's complicated and not explained with a naive "I just wanted to sail my warship through, gee why do u bully ME?"
Crimea de facto belongs to Russia now and that isn't going to change to no matter how many warships cruise past it.
Realistically it's difficult to imagine any scenario where Crimea ends up belonging to Ukraine again.
Now that Biden has waived the sanctions against the Nordstream 2 project, Ukraine will lose it's strategic importance as a gas transit country. At the same time Russia's importance as an energy supplier to Europe will increase. It won't be much longer before no one cares about Ukraine or Crimea anymore.
I’ll leave the semantic arguments to the Latin majors. Russia may see some legitimacy to its claim to Crimean territory, but it’s a self-asserted claim and it should be treated with as much respect as any other self-asserted claim.
I’m not talking about semantics nor about the international legality of it.
The difference between your assertion and this situation Is that in addition to asserting that Crimea is now a part of Russia they also control and govern it. I don’t think there is a lot anyone can do about that.
I don’t think that’s a contentious claim to make, it’s simply just the reality of it.
What will be more interesting will be to see how far Western/NATO countries will go to change that reality and how far Russia will go to prevent that.
Is it dishonest for reporters to report factually-accurate on sensational crimes if the reporting leads people to believe sensational crimes happen often? Which circle of hell do I end up in for posting about Shark Week on social media?
That's still being dishonest by omission about relative danger. I meant like the "lead paint is harmful" example that klyrs gave. Getting people to check for lead in their homes is also manipulation, but it's positive.
I regret following this advice in 2018. I have way too many SaaS applications that, 3 years later, still don’t support Ed25519 keys. The errors are never helpful, and each time I’ve had to troubleshoot the issue, it’s cost me at least half a day.
