It's not. The current standard, set by Brandenburg v. Ohio, forbids speech which advocates imminent lawless action. It is a standard much broader than the Schenk case's threshold of clear and present danger.

> The problem is that most people who cite it are using it as an analogy for something else that isn’t.

Even the man who composed the the phrase did this. Schenk's "fire in a theater" aphorism was Oliver Wendell Holmes's attempt to persuasively discredit a group of Yiddish speaking anti-war pamphleteers in his non-binding legal commentary. The comparison is not a legal analysis nor is it itself a ruling on the merits of the case.

> There's a certain beyond which you don't build things because it's evident that society can't be trusted with it.

Where does one draw the line and under what conditions? Reasonable minds can differ on the definition of foreseeable.

After all, Some of the most beneficial inventions to mankind have also aided its worst tendencies. For instance, the 20th and 21st centuries as we know them wouldn't exist without the combustion engine. Simultaneously, it's this same device that has significantly contributed to the pollution of the air.

Secondly, how does one mean to stop society or any individual from learning and building on new ideas in the Information age? Is such a thing even possible?

If the conclusion of a meme is ridiculous, it stands to reason that the claim it makes is similarly so. Memes are not substantial enough to be considered as evidence or proof of moral pronouncements any more than other popularly-invoked and contextless aphorisms are.

> I also don’t see the connection to its reference being an attack on character.

The character attack comes from the implied framing of the invention of the so-called "torment nexus" as the direct product of a person or people exhibiting moral failure through action or inaction. What that particular moral failure is or whether it is a moral failure one at all isn't even given a cursory examination by those crying torment nexus.

What's the solution? The alternative, where we can't criticize our governments on account of their hypocrisies and imperfections, robs citizens of their check against an institution with a monopoly on violence.

> Americans can never call out human rights abuses because of slavery. The British can never because of colonialism. Period. Forever.

There's certainly a difference between holding countries responsible for events that have long since ceased and holding a government responsible for double standards practiced presently. The UK lacks credibility on Hong Kong when its own citizens are being jailed on the basis of overbroad hate speech regulations and when its government agencies attempt to claim extraterritorial jurisdiction over the operation of foreign social media companies. Westminister can't be so empty-headed as to believe that its actions will go unnoticed by other governments.

What changed your outlook? Did you get burned by Microsoft?

> A meaningful relationship necessarily requires some element of giving, not just getting. The meaning comes from the exchange between two people, the feedback loop of give and take that leads to trust.

This part seems all over the place. Firstly, why would an individual do something he/she has no expectation to benefit from or control in any way? Why would he/she cast away his/her agency for unpredictable outcomes and exposure to unnecessary and unconstrained risk?

Secondly, for exchange to occur there must a measure of inputs, outputs, and the assessment of their relative values. Any less effort or thought amounts to an unnecessary gamble. Both the giver and the intended beneficiary can only speak for their respective interests. They have no immediate knowledge of the other person's desires and few individuals ever make their expectations clear and simple to account for.

> Not everyone needs a romantic relationship, but to think a chatbot could ever fulfill even 1% of the very fundamental human need of close relationships is dangerous thinking. At best, a chatbot can be a therapist or a sex toy. A one-way provider of some service, but never a relationship. If that's what is needed, then fine, but anything else is a slippery slope to self destruction.

A relationship is an expectation. And like all expectations, it is a conception of the mind. People can be in a relationship with anything, even figments of their imaginations, so long as they believe it and no contrary evidence arises to disprove it.

How much did you pay for the house? How much rennovation did it need? Are you working remotely there? How did you acquire a house in an area that's less accommodating to English than Tokyo? Did you need/use a real estate agent?

https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-kno...

From what I've witnessed, the most common complainants were authoritarian mothers who treat their own child(ren) as helpless irrespective of biological age, and teachers, usually with families of their own, who treat non-violent "quirks" beyond their comprehension as a sign of malfeasance. In both cases, lack of familiarity with children is not the issue. Instead, their previous "successes" with raising/teaching children cement a narrow and selective expectation for how children must or must be made to behave. The motivation in either case is a desire for control. The ideological/cultural angle is, at best, a sincerely held rationalization, but is more likely an instinctual employment of thought-terminating cliches/kafkatraps to justify getting their way or make dissenters look/feel unreasonable.

The only Internet the common man interacted with is the one that began to flourish as the government relinquished control. The Internet since the mid-90s is and has been a purely commercial achievement.