FauxLiving

joined 10 months ago
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

Karl Popper’s paradox of intolerance is about how we can’t tolerate intolerance in society.

It isn’t a cloak for you to wear when you want to be intolerant and feel justified. Nor is it a proscription to dehumanize and celebrate suffering.

Those are the actions of the intolerant, which we will not tolerate here.

Similarly, it’s fine for those who want others to suffer, to suffer themselves.

The irony.

So you mean people like OP? You?

Don’t confuse feeling outraged or righteous for an actual moral high ground.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago (6 children)

Hey, asshole, not everyone who lives in a rural area and is poor is a Trump supporter. Nor, would being a Trump supporter mean that it's okay to let them freeze or cheer at other people suffering. You're engaging in exactly the same toxic dehumanization as the MAGA crowd.

If you think rural voters are your enemy or the source of our problems, then you're woefully ignorant about the current political situation or how political influence works.

You're very much right to be angry, but make sure you know where that anger should be directed before making outrage bait posts like this.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

˙suɐʍɐpɐd ǝlʇʇᴉl ʞɔnl pooפ

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

Intentionally mispelling things to 'prove' that you're human is a common enough meme that it would be in the AI training material of any LLM that is destined to be an Internet troll bot.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

I mean, the глупый isn't wrong about the tactics.

Perhaps our comrade here got a bit too drunk and violated opsec and is now on his way to meet a Ukrainian drone like the rest of his recently deceased countrymen.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Exactly.

This isn’t a decision being made to cut costs, it’s a strategic move because the EU just assessed how badly they’d be screwed if Trump throws a tantrum and forces American tech companies to disrupt services to their governments.

In addition, the EU has strong data privacy laws and US tech companies are resisting compliance (Elon was recently fined 150million, for example).

This has led to several hearings with tech executives who said that they could not guarantee that the data would stay in the EU and they could not guarantee that the data would not be provided to any other country.

Digital privacy laws don’t mean anything if they don’t apply to the major tech companies and they’ve said that they won’t comply.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It’s an analogy, the article is about digital privacy not drugs.

It doesn’t matter what substance he uses as an analogy because he’s talking about the dangers of pushing a dangerous product at industrial scale.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The person is using heroin as a metaphor for a destructive product that causes harm to its users in order to setup an article about digital privacy. When people use metaphors, we all understand that they’re a rhetorical technique and not an attempt at describing reality.

If someone says that their grandchildren are perfect little angles, you don’t say “well, actually, angels are divine beings who don’t dwell upon this earth Grandma, so your grandchildren are not angels and also you’re so dumb for literally thinking that.” In this scenario, it isn’t the grandmother that is dumb.

You’re getting caught up in the fact that he said to imagine a scenario. You think that the fake scenario he imagined, where US corporations are selling recreational heroin, is not as bad as the current opioid epidemic. That is a completely irrelevant detail because, once again, the article isn’t about drugs.

It’s like you’re saying “this guy is stupid, you can’t put social media in a spoon and melt it over a candle in order to inject it into your arm!”. Sure, I guess you’d be correct, but it would be completely irrelevant and make it look like you can’t navigate basic conversations without pointless digressions about irrelevant details.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Based on this I’m not gonna read the rest of the article because he’s already demonstrated a head-up-ass perspective.

You do know that the entire rest of the article never mentions drugs ever again and you're getting needlessly spun-up about a metaphor for social media and you're just trolling, right?

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

What?

My only other comment in this post is:

Wow, one article about one guy has got you quoting fascist memes.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

You're right, they probably wouldn't bother for the vast majority of people. Also, for the typical computer that isn't security hardened and is also connected to the Internet, you could do the entire attack with a few seconds of access.

This kind of attack is referred to as an evil maid attack, if you want to research tools and methods.

If they're trying to uncover a conspiracy of multiple targets, being able to bug the electronic devices of any of the members will give them a lot of ongoing intelligence and opportunities to infect additional target. Being able to image a device before the target is aware of the investigation (who then alters/deletes the data) is also important in a lot of cases.

 

I'll just post my initial comment in the entirety since what happens is entirely predicted by my first comment.

The topic was trans athletes and, like with any hot button political issues, there are rigidly defined 'sides' that come with a list of things that you must profess.

These things are simply declared as not being open to discussion and if you challenge that declaration, ye power trippin' bastards rear their ugly head. This dogma is unhealthy in any community and the people who enforce it through social pressure, cyber bullying and mod powers are actively harmful.

As to demonstrate my point I continued with the conversation, responding in good faith to the people who attempted a conversation, right up until I was mass banned (which only took a few hours).

The first comment is here if you want to see the entire conversation or think I'm hiding some secret transphobic rants in my comment history: https://lemmy.world/comment/15496985

The Initial Comment

This is an issue that exposes some of the more dogmatic people in the movement.

It is as if there is a list of positions that you’re required to believe and if you disagree with any one of them you’re labeled a heretic (transphobic, in this case).

Sports and the fairness of competition is a complex issue even when you’re just talking about cisgender competitors:

Can a person use performance enhancing drugs to train and then get clean enough to test positive for a competition? It seems unfair, to me, for the other competitors if this is the case.

It isn’t an unfair statement to say that the physical performance of cisgender men is higher than that of cisgender women. This is why we have separate competitions for men and women.

The issue isn’t as simple as a choice between “Transgender people should be free, without question, to compete in any competition” or “Transgender people should not be allowed to compete as their gender”

Framing it in such a black and white manner is harmful behavior, no matter which position you take.

We need to understand how people’s bodies are affected and what advantages of disadvantages are obtained and then base the rule changes on objective data and not appeals to emotion or ideological bullying.

Fabricated Pretexts

The last thing I said on the topic (bold added), as there were already commenters insinuating that I'm secretly a transphobe rather than engaging in discussion, was:

Obviously the people arguing that trans people should never compete are ignorant, I’m not supporting that position. From the point of view of fairness in competition there has to be an objective answer that’s backed by objective tests.

Simply declaring that trans people are beyond reproach and that any attempts to quantify biological advantage are unfairly discriminatory and anyone asking these questions is a bigot isn’t helpful.

I include this because included in the reasons for the bans is: "Transphobia attempting to make excuses for trans exclusion from sports." This is completely misrepresenting what I said and what I believe in order to create a pretext for a ban.

And the power trippin' bastards come in with the sweeping community bans (linuxphones@lemmy.ca, really?): https://lemmy.world/modlog?page=2&actionType=ModBanFromCommunity&userId=12926811

Conclusion

This kind of thinking is harmful to any community.

Labeling disagreement as bigotry is nonsense. Refusing to engage on a topic and using filters and bans to hide from people who don't perfectly align with your ideas is not how you make allies or educate people.

The people that do this are responsible for creating the impression that your communities are hostile and made up of extremists. Attacking allies because they don't fall in line without question is a blunder.

People with moderator powers should be held to a higher standard of responsibility and fabricating reasons for bans and mislabeling people as bigots is the ultimate abdication of that responsibility. These people are not interested in helping a community thrive, they simply want to be the ones with the power to strike out at people that they want to hurt regardless of the damage that it causes.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk (except you, Linuxphones@lemmy.ca, I pray you never learn how to exit vim)

view more: next ›