Are bookstores oppressive because they don’t have every book?

They are oppressive if they arbitrarily deny access to the books they already have to a demographic of people. E.g., you have brown skin, and because a shoplifter had brown skin they decide to block all people in that demographic. Of course collective punishment is oppressive. Anubis is not creating a failure to have information. It’s being used to deny access to information the service already has.

Do you not still have access through other means?

I personally do not. Clearnet does not work on my system. But this is irrelevant. Tor supports my right to privacy and autonomy, and it is consistent with my values and ethical lifestyle. I actually find it unethical to use clearnet needlessly, for a number of reasons, one of which is to do our duty to give strength in numbers to activists and the oppressed. And to give them cover traffic. I also morally oppose advertising and thus object to sharing data with surveillance advertisers.

And your missing the point of your not entitled to it either. Why does a website HAVE to cater yo how you wish to access? Because the website still has every right to tell you to kick sand. A bookstore can ban you for wearing a backpack. This is the society we live in.

For the /third/ time, I already agreed there is no entitlement. The site can grant access to whoever the fuck it wants. And we have the right to express criticism. This is still irrelevant to the thesis of incompetent access controls, as it was the previous times you tried to recycle a this dead strawman of an argument. I never said admins don’t have a right to implement infosec countermeasures in a foolish manner with reckless results. It’s their right. This was not contested by anyone in this thread.

Being blocked from access to books is similar to being blocked from information generally (i.e. the Internet, which is where books now exist).

Are bookstores oppressive because they don't have every book? Is wiki because they don't let you edit whatever you want?

Do you not still have access through other means?

Okay, but you’re still missing the relationship between objects and the practice of one’s cognitive liberty facilitated those objects. It’s the oppression of cognitive liberty that is the problem. The objects involved are just working for your doublespeak to conflate and trivialize the oppression of a demographic of people.

And your missing the point of your not entitled to it either. Why does a website HAVE to cater yo how you wish to access? Because the website still has every right to tell you to kick sand. A bookstore can ban you for wearing a backpack. This is the society we live in.

You accessing content still consumes resources, why should the server owner pay for your access your way?

Is it that internal belief system I keep talking about?

You’re talking about it, yet the doublespeak remains irrelevant.

I have no idea what the UDHR is.

Not surprised. Universal declaration of human rights.

Do you feel opreased by a book?

Of course I would feel oppressed when blocked from access to a book, amid your attempt to arguing the contrary by reducing it to an object /being/ a thought. Being blocked from access to books is similar to being blocked from information generally (i.e. the Internet, which is where books now exist).

Neither is your browser.

Okay, but you’re still missing the relationship between objects and the practice of one’s cognitive liberty facilitated those objects. It’s the oppression of cognitive liberty that is the problem. The objects involved are just working for your doublespeak to conflate and trivialize the oppression of a demographic of people.

Of course the reality is some choices are easier and some are not.

But why? What makes a choice easier or harder? Is it that internal belief system I keep talking about?

I have no idea what the UDHR is.

The bible doesn't define faith. Its a book. The beluver defines and intrpets the faith.

Do you feel opreased by a book?

Your high-heels is not “an internal belief system”. Nor is a hajab. Does this mean you can’t complain when forced to dress a certain way?

Neither is your browser.

If its a choice it should be easy.

If a choice is inherently easy, in your view, then you are misusing the term. Of course the reality is some choices are easier and some are not.

Thats great, but not what I was talking about. I’m talking about internal belief systems.

The UDHR is not.

Your browser is not an internal belief system.

This is like saying a book is not an “internal belief system”. Yet the bible and koran are books.

Your high-heels is not “an internal belief system”. Nor is a hajab. Does this mean you can’t cite oppression when forced to dress a certain way?

And again, browsers are irrelevant without the transparency of knowing the oppressor’s blocking criteria. They are more likely suppressing people on the basis of their IP address, not browser. But we can only guess because they do not express which demographics they are oppressing. The oppressed knows they are in the oppressed group, but they don’t know how they got there.

Then choose to wholly believe in Allah for 10 min if its not a choice. Accept the profit Muhammad as the last profit from god.

If its a choice it should be easy.

Or does it clash with an internal belief system.

We are also free to change our religion, or even join another religion in parallel, where I am.

Thats great, but not what I was talking about.

I'm talking about internal belief systems.

Your browser is not an internal belief system. Its a reflection sure, but so is a the clothing you wear. Are you also oppressed by business casual attire?

I stand by the line being an internal classification vs something you do.

You don’t choose faith, its found to be you. You find your faith and community.

Nonsense. Religion is a choice in my part of the world. There may be regions where it is imposed, but that’s irrelevent to the demonstration of your foolish stance that it’s okay to oppress demographics of those who made a choice.

We are also free to change our religion, or even join another religion in parallel, where I am.

Is a browser so important to you that you can’t live without it?

This is becoming increasingly so, as governments impose using a browser to obtain public service. (and yes, I am in a country that is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which means public service is a right).

Nonetheless, a “living without it” test does not exist in this context. The UDHR does not have such criteria for our right to autonomy. Rightfully so. Women in France got their right to abortion under the right to autonomy. Imagine if they had to prove being unable to live without that right in order to have it. That criteria can fuck right off because we have higher standards than mere survival.

Is a browser part of your internal definition of you?

This is double speak. My choice of browser is a reflection of my ethical values. Some browsers are more closely aligned with my philosophical view than others.

None of those are choices for faith, or other protected classes.

Nonsense. The UDHR does not separate religion from freedom of thought. It’s written in the same article. Would do you some good to read it.

You don't choose faith, its found to be you. You find your faith and community. Don't believe me? Choose to believe in god for 10 min right now.

Is a browser so important to you that you can't live without it?

Is a browser part of your internal definition of you?

None of those are choices for faith, or other protected classes. Theyre internal identity. Your an ass using a computer.

I can’t choose a woman, you can choose a browser. Its really that simple.

No, it’s not. This is as good as telling someone oppressed for their religion: “you chose your religion -- you don’t have to be muslim if you don’t like being oppressed -- become christian”. Of course, this requires you to neglect freedom of autonomy, freedom of thought and conscious, freedom to practice one’s values and live by a philosophy. Choice is irrelevent when the choice is a rightfully protected choice.

(edit) And no, I cannot “choose another browser” when the oppressor does not even disclose which browser they are not blocking. Choice implies transparency.

I said nothing if acceptance.

Its what makes a protected class protected. Did you choose the class.

I can't choose a woman, you can choose a browser. Its really that simple.

Your brining in acceptance is nonsense. A protected class doesn't stop being protected once accepted.

How I represent is irrelevant. I'm still a woman regardless of how I present. And would have been acosyed in the bathroom for being a trans woman, not what I wore.

And yes, I am telling people to change their choice demographic. I tell people not to vote conservative/republican all the time. Do you not?

Edit: is gender juat you're presentation?

And you can control one situation, where I can't control the fact I'm a woman.

THATS the difference. Did you choose this. You chose tor, I did not choose to be a woman.

As a trams woman, let me know when you get accosted in a bathroom for using tor.

For users are not a demographic, and you are not oppressed for it.

There's actual oppression happening in this world, and your trying to scream its happening to you. Its not.

I’m not the one being an asshole here buddy

Of course you are. You’re the one supporting oppression. Collective punishment and collateral damage is a dick move. Stop being a dick. You cannot support collective punishment and marginalization of a demographic of people without being an asshole. It’s impossible.

Yeah... I'm not the one being an asshole here buddy.....

Its your free speech to say that, and its mine to point out you have no foundation to actually complain.

Of course. You can make whatever baseless points you want to attempt. But you only make an ass of yourself if you cannot support your claims with facts. So far you’ve failed to show competency in the case at hand.

That doesn't absolve you from being an ass calling them incompetent. Especially when everyone else reading here says your being an ass.

Its your free speech to say that, and its mine to point out you have no foundation to actually complain.

No, I’m not “mad”. I’m not a user of that system. I have invested no time in it -- no content. I was simply visiting one of their communities to verify whether it existed before posting from another node. They put on an embarrassing display and I spotlighted it. I am in a country that gives me a right to criticize and I am happy to exercise that right.

So they have the right to tell you to piss off, and your mad yoy got told to piss off. I still fail to see a problem.

You have every right to give your candy to whom you please, for whatever reason, with the exception of protected classes.

Of course. But rights are not at issue. They are irrelevent, and have been since you brought them up.

Tor is not a protected class, like race, gender, sexuality…

And we are not talking about law or rights, so again, another red herring.

Seriously, your comparing a war crime to someone telling you to fuck off with your connection.

I thought you were deliberately exaggerating when you brought uip war crime the first time. You need help if you think collective punishment inherently involves war crimes.

A business/person can choose not to engage with you for any reason other than legally protected classes.

Of course. I already agreed on this. Means nothing though in terms of the thesis of the thread.

Again, your example is far from a war crime here.

You have every right to give your candy to whom you please, for whatever reason, with the exception of protected classes. Tor is not a protected class, like race, gender, sexuality....

Seriously, your comparing a war crime to someone telling you to fuck off with your connection. A business/person can choose not to engage with you for any reason other than legally protected classes.

If you don’t have a right to content, how is it collective punishment,

How is this a sensible question? A does not imply B. Punishment is independent of rights. If a kid dressed up as spiderman smashes my pumpkins, and I then refuse to give candy to all kids dressed as spiderman thereafter, it’s collective punishment regardless of whether the kids had a “right” to the candy in the first place.

Thats my entire argument.

And it wholly fails.

How is you not being able to access information in your preffered format, that you probably still have means to access, an ethnic group…

Read your own source: “which could be an ethnic or political group,” It’s an example to help you understand, not a definition.

If you don't have a right to content, how is it collective punishment, if you admit you don't have an unlimited right to use it the way you want.

Thats my entire argument.

Your going off comparing it to actual Collective punishment

How is you not being able to access information in your preffered format, that you probably still have means to access, an ethnic group....