Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Louis Rossmann" channel.

Nah, they really wouldn't have had any issues with him speaking that fast if the audio quality wasn't godawful... Them wanting him to speak slowly was mostly meant as a mitigation for that, not because talking fast is a issue in itself for them.
1
@Zimmerh90 Exactly. Thank you.
1
Yep.
1
@cryalowicki I see, jeez... Well, this is the kind of things that should influence your voting pattern and where you choose to walk door to door for a candidate in the elections... And yes, this is one of the reasons why I'm glad I live in a small country. While bribes exist in small countries too it's easier to make a small country not corrupt then a big one.
1
@pelic9608 Yeah, those was the days. :-P
1
@davidamoritz Read the original meaning of that word...
1
@John Doe How so? Why are we somehow "pussies".
1
@ltcshow6175 The principles of how to be a good citizen in a society where power originates in its people are pretty universal for said societies and not limited to my nation. You don't need to use our democratic system. But be a good citizen, instead of being a problem that's worse then the issues you're trying to address.
1
@racitup4114 Possibly, but even so there's actions that's acceptable and actions that's not in a civil society.
1
WingsOfTruth Really...
1
@Mekronid Exactly, last resort. And you dare insulting those who have died for truly important rights like the one to express themselves or organize with something like just wanting to repair things? Yes this is bad, but violence should be reserved for truly important issues where our very freedom or even lives are at stake. It shocks me that you don't have more respect for the workers of the past who have fought for said rights. As for the right to repair, it's important, but it's on a totally different scale and suggesting that it's as valid to use civil disobedience and violence for that as for the right to unionize, vote or speak freely... I don't even have words.
1
@ColinFox You're really comparing arguing for laws that allows a agreement to be made where someone is restricted in their freedoms and rights with regards to what they're doing with that item (kind of like when leasing a car or buying a online game these days) with actual laws killing, torturing and limiting the freedoms of people in a whole *country*? The later not only makes fighting back by any means justified but a duty, the former on the other hand does not and talking about using violence in that context is an insult to those who actually have a reason to fight that way.
1
@Mekronid People have different ideas about what is or isn't freedom, two of those three things you mentioned isn't even close to universally being considered freedoms. No, ownership of property isn't a universal freedom, it's a right that a society can choose to have or not and it's no more or less free either way as long as people have a way to change that democratically. (The Soviet Union still doesn't cut it in other words and going to that step without the majority of those affected wanting it and the rest having the option to leave would be an issue) The idea of defending ourselves, if you refer to the idea of gun ownership or the use of violence by private citizens then no, that's not considered a freedom by most people either, but is a duty if and only if our real freedom is under threat. Freedom is about ownership of our own bodies and our own fate and the right to express ourselves, move, act or think however we want without persecution. And to freely interact with others. Also there's other things that many consider freedoms that you didn't include although I personally think they fall in the same category as private property. Among a wide range of possible states that a democratic nation can be in from the far right to the far left, both with ideas of freedom that the other side doesn't recognize.
1
@ltcshow6175 That's the point though, why should owning a phone be considered a right? It's a luxury that many quite frankly still can't afford on this planet. You're treating luxuries as human rights when they're not. I agree, it's nice to be able to own one, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with such a ownership not being legal in a nation for whatever reason in terms of concepts like freedom or democracy as long as the ones enacting such laws are democratically elected and can be democratically removed. Banning phones doesn't justify violence or anything of that sort.
1
@ltcshow6175 My point is that expression and democracy is what we should fight the hardest for and as long as we got that anything else should be done within the framework of civil society. Slippery slope applies to your justification too, people have a lot of different ideas about what's worth being nasty about. Before you know it abortion clinics and gun clubs gets harassing calls at home to their leaders disturbing and frightening their kids.
1
@Mekronid Perhaps learn a bit more about different ideologies before speaking about them. When looking at multiple different ideologies it's ownership of our bodies and our expression that's considered fundamental freedoms required for a democracy to work. Anything else then that is meant to be negotiated within the framework of said democracy. The extent of ownership of property is one of several things that is negotiated there. Different populations will land on different solutions there. Within this framework considered that you can make your own phone with different terms then those of the big companies. Ownership might also have more flexible definitions, with limitations imposed for the common good, said allowing the freedom to roam as a freedom prioritized above that of ownership of land. Likewise a phone can be seen as a luxury. You don't need it. My grand parents where afraid of using phones because it was new technology back then, but they still lived in a democracy. I'd of course vote against banning phones, but acting as if ownership of one is a right like real rights such as freedom of speech is just... I have no words... Basically, certain things justifies civil disobedience, violence, riots etc, phone ownership just doesn't get close to that point even if I'd hate giving up the phone I'm using to type this. Mum managed just fine in a time when there was a single landline in the whole *village*. And there was times when I grew up that we didn't have a phone too, even if it never lasted long. That was in the eighties and nineties by the way. My point is just that the threshold for violence or other things that are unhealthy for a democracy should be extremely high. Otherwise we just end up with the brown shirts of the 1930s Germany all over again... It doesn't matter how justified you feel that your cause is. Harassing the political opposition is not ok in a civil society.
1
@Mekronid I live in a country where communists who thinks that ownership is theft and anarco-capitalists who thinks taxation is theft has to come together regularly to make compromises in order to run if not the country then at least regions and local governments (although you sometimes find them both in the parliament negotiating with each other). They have fundamentally different views of the world, but because we live in a civil society they still treat each other with respect and are even friends in several cases. They make compromises that they're able to get a majority for and that changes the country, arguably for the better, but at least in a way that is accepted as valid. And people play by the rules of our democracy. That's the point of democracy, not to get the best leaders, but to find solutions that reduce tension and ensures that people remain civil even if they might disagree with said solutions and have very strong opinions and find the outcome of the policies of the state outright painful.
1
@ltcshow6175 My approach is that there needs to be some proper demonstrations that doesn't stop till there's some real change and some proper campaigning for candidates that actually works for change, including third party candidates. Basically, I agree that something needs to be done. But it needs to be done in a civilized way.
1
@Lalitaditya100 To put it this way, I'd rather be judged by a above 60 Norwegian judge then a below 60 judge in most other countries even on tech specific topics...
1
That would have been nice...
1
Yeah, the main issue was probably just the skype call... They complained about audio distortions multiple times... So, yeah...
1
This wasn't about them not knowing enough about computers. It was about them talking with him over a skype call first and foremost.
1
How so? May I ask what differences you noticed?
1
Nah. He speaks too fast for a laggy skype call, regardless of who he was talking with... If he had been sitting there they'd have zero issues with his speech, I promise you.
1
Yeah, a skype call probably wasn't ideal...
1
Yeah, that said, A would probably have been a non-issue if there wasn't for B...
1
@5tormwolf92 Sorry, what?
1
I have no idea... Perhaps there's no better option out there for them that is also available to most potential witnesses?
1
Hovedproblemet var nok WI-FIen deres og dårlig lydkvalitet i deres ende...
1
Yep. And honestly they probably wouldn't have minded that if the audio quality wasn't so bad on their end...
1
@LPikeno You where watching him on a OBS recording on his end, not the Skype call from their end after going through a awful court Wi-Fi on budget speakers and headphones...
1
You're misidentifying the issue. The skype call was absolutely crap quality... This video was recorded on his side.
1
Yes, kind of my thoughts on this to be honest...
1
They didn't see him at all. In their end it was a audio call only.
1
Good one. ;-)
1
Or you know normal people who just happen to be listening to a New Yorker talking of a crappy conference call...
1
You're too paranoid... The Norwegian justice system cares very little about actually punishing people.
1
Yeah, honestly that would probably have been a better option...
1
Yep, pretty much... :-/
1
They could probably translate it just fine if he was actually sitting there instead of on a skype call... Just saying...
1
Yes, there was something with their audio. They commented several times about audio distortions... And they're using corporate skype. (And they're probably using court wi-fi too, something that's not helping matters)
1
Yeah, and he's speaking as fast as some people drive when they lose their license due to speeding... -_-
1
Yes, that was what I was worrying about too. It's technically illegal to film people without their consent here even in public (you need to do something to hide them like apply a blur over them if you want to share those videos) from what I understand. That said, courts are a bit different. News agencies usually use sketch artists to draw people in court when covering legal cases as they're free to be present and report anything that is said but are required to keep all parties anonymous etc. Then they may have a interview with the prosecutors and lawyers if desired outside of court. The judge may also close the court to media in some situations. In this situation I would suggest that he'll ask the lawyer who asked him for his testimony though.
1
The internet quality was probably just fine into the court house... Now the corporate skype call quality and the internal wi-fi in the court on the other hand... Yeah.... That might have been more of a issue...
1
@Loftikaz There's no need to say "stfu". I live in Norway, I really don't think she minds that people here think that was funny. It was a fun situation, and it's ok to think so as long as people laugh at the situation instead of laughing at the people involved.
1
@Argosh Well, to put it in perspective. I've had English classes every school week since I reached the age of 6 to the age 18. The number of classes pr week varied from a low of just 2 pr week during parts of that time to a high of 6 classes of English pr week at the peak (two sets of 3 classes in a row at two different days) I'd say that 4 classes pr week was probably the norm for most of my time in school though.
1
Yep...
1