but but but but you'd get something good for it! You would never have missed it, but maybe you just didn't know you wanted it? Come on, I'm sure consuming shit that will make you happy twice for two minutes each (once when clicking buy, once when getting and opening the package) will fill that hole in your soul! Spending money on stuff you don't actually need is good!
(That was sarcasm, if it wasn't clear enough.)
Absolute big brain move
If they gave people more choices, it would be less of a shity ecosystem though, wouldn't it? Wouldn't that be a good thing? It wouldn't fix any of the other issues, but less freedom is never something to be glad about.
I hate apple as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I have to hate their users or wish them ill. We should strive to stand above the petty us-vs-them mindset.
Suppose I have a javascript file for a node server's backend access named db.js
Suppose I write tests for those functions and name the test script file db.test.js
Suppose I tar and gzip that file (bear with me), now named db.test.js.tar.gz
Suppose I sign that file with PGP, now named db.test.js.tar.gz.pgp
Now suppose I want to hide that signed compressed tarball of a javascript tests file for my db functions, and to do so, I name it .db.test.js.tar.gz.pgp
Now I have a file that looks like it consists of nothing but extensions. I'm sure you could push it even further though, if you tried.
Yeah, that's the Paradox of Tolerance. Short version: If you're being intolerant, why should I tolerate you?
To paraphrase Karl Popper: A society that values tolerance to the point of indulging those that oppose it will effectively be defenseless against that hate. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reason with them first, but we need to reserve the right to shut them up, by force if we have to.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Karl Popper, 1945, The Open Society and Its Enemies
I don't think the Nazis care about what I think they should or should not be allowed to do. They're going to use violence, whether or not I hold a gun or a white flag. If I say "No, force is bad!" they're going to say "Suit yourself!" and use it anyway. How am I going to stop them?
An ideology is worth only as much as the people defending it. If I am so concerned with the letter of the law if tolerance that I refuse to defend its spirit, I'll be condemned along with it.
That's the point of the paradox: If we deny ourselves the use of force, we're essentially conceding that right to them.
This an ideological conflict. We each believe the other is in the wrong, so whatever rules the other attempts to impose have no bearing on us because they're wrong. Hence: We should try rational argument first and hope to keep them in check by public opinion, but when that fails?
You can go stand in the middle and be proud of your enlightenend and nonviolent convictions. And when they next shoot up a gay night club or a black church, you can go and look the dying victims and their grieving loved ones in the eye and say "Aren't you glad these people get to freely encourage each others' bigotry?"
So when it comes to dealing with fascists, I'll listen to the guy that watched the rise of the original fascists, the failure of democracy, and took notes
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
(ibid)
I can't comment on the general trend, but this specific one seems a bit too circumstantial to be of use for a serious spying effort. You'd have to have the spyware running parallel to the apps usong passwords you want to steal in a specific way.
The risk exists, which is bad enough for stochastic reasons (eventually, someone will get lucky and manage to grab something sensitive, and since the potential damage from that is incalculable, the impact axis alone drives this into firm "you need to get that fix out asap), but probably irrelevant in terms of consistency, which would be what you'd need to actually monitor anyone.
If you manage to grab enough info to crack some financial access data, you can steal money. If you can take over some legit online account or obtain some email-password combo, you can sell it. But if you want to monitor what people are doing in otherwise private systems, you need some way to either check on demand or log their actions and periodically send them to your server.
It would be far more reliable to have injection backdoors to allow you access by virtue of forcing a credential check to come up valid than to hope for the lucky grab of credentials the user might change at an arbitrary moment in time.
Oh I have tried the rational argument often enough. I still do, where I see the opportunity. I spend way too much time trying to convince people of my point of view even when I'm pretty sure there never was any hope in the first place.
But the type of hate speech and stochastic terrorism we're talking about "censoring" is beyond rational discourse. If "Don't use slurs, please" drives you to say "Fuck you, I'll hang with the bigots then", then tolerance can't have been that important to you.
You don't need to keep touching the stove to realise it's hot. Many platforms have tried the free speech angle and realised that it leads to an influx of hate, devoid of reason, and they'll either introduce some moderation or have all other people leave because nobody wants concentrated vitriol on their feed, except for those toxic enough to thrive on it.
We can debate rationally when both parties are being rational. If you can't "debate" without spewing hatred, then I shouldn't have to waste my time playing by rules you never gave a fuck about in the first place.
Meanwhile, you've been cheerfully dodging all the directly pertinent things like conservative platforms and spaces deleting opposing voices or disabling comments entirely, cries to "kill the X" where X is anything from libs to slurs and right wing acts of violence like shooting up clubs, churches, or storming the congress because your favourite TV show host no longer get to use the POTUS twitter to commit acts of stochastic terrorism.
But sure, not fighting strawmen designed to scare the gullible into fear of the "other" is the real fault. Nevermind the gross misrepresentation of what we mean by hate speech. "You won't let me use slurs, you're literally Hitler!"
The systematic persecution of jews started out with an increasing tide of hatred, misinformation and propaganda against them. We don't need to wait until isolated acts become a systematic pattern to see the signs on the wall and try to fight them before it comes to that point.
Nobody sane thinks that forcing people to suck your cock is anything but rape, and in the famous case of a trans woman setting weight lifting records, she was competing in the male category. You're getting mad over nothing and turning a blind eye to actual deception.
I googled about lemmy, found a blog post to introduce the whole concept, they linked an instance recommendation thing based on (if I understood correctly) the uptime, (de)federation and user count of the instance, and I just clicked one of the suggestions. So many posts claimed that it doesn't make a great difference that I eventually decided to toss my overoptimisation habit and take what was suggested to me.
But I'm still learning my way around here, who knows if this will stay my forever home.
I'm not going to stand by idly while they encourage each other with calls to violence. I don't want anyone to die at all, but they're the ones advocating for it. They started this.
We all just want to live our best lives. We only ask that you don't interfere with our enjoyment. When you do, we reserve the right to self-defense, the most natural right of all.
If you genuinely think that they're fine to call for the death of my people, but I'm wrong to want to silence that sentiment, then you're complicit in their violence.
Just leave us in peace. You can have your little circle of supremacy where you reaffirm how awesome you all are, as long as you don't bother anyone else. That's all we ask: Tolerance and respect for one another.
I'm aware why iOS is bad, thank you. I still don't wish restrictions on its users. That's just not a nice thing to do.
There's also the argument of lasting improvement: If people switch to other systems, I'd rather see them do it out of a positive motivation (i.e. "this is better") than a negative one (i.e. "the other one so bad I had to finally jump ship and find a different solution").
That motivation will bias your mindset, and a positive mindset will lead to a better user experience. If they just switch because it's not as bad as the other, that will taint their experience. They'll be inclined to think about what they miss, rather than what the other offers.
Example: Me, trying to wrap my head around the communities thing here after leaving reddit. I miss the relative simplicity of finding topical subreddits, which is harder here both because there's less traffic overall, and because I had a sizeable collection of subs there that I can't simply migrate here. Part of me wants to return to the familiar hell, even if I rationally understand why it's shit, and I feel that sours my experience with Lemmy so far.
Humans tend to prefer the familiar, so if they leave iOS for something better, I want that better thing to land as well as possible, to encourage getting familiar with the new environment and expand their horizons, and to make future leaps in other areas less scary and off-putting.
On the contrary, I am quite ideologically sympathetic. I've always used Open / LibreOffice, I no longer use windows, never had a Mac or iPhone or anything, I argued with stakeholders for making our university project FOSS rather than proprietary, the list goes on. I've spent enough time arguing with people why they should care about FOSS.
I'm just also aware of my biases, and of the fact that most people are heavily biased by their UX. Most people don't want to spend a long time thinking to understand, they simply want to use. And in that respect, bad==proprietary doesn't universally hold up. Big companies can spend big bucks on user research, on figuring out what does and doesn't work for their target audience, on developing features that appeal to people. They also can spend big bucks on marketing and cultivating a brand image so that people start to identify with their products, deepening the attachment.
There is also an unfortunate side effect of FOSS when it comes to setting technical standards: If everyone can make their own, plenty of people will do that. Sure, many things have since been standardised, but how often has a common standard evolved as a side effect of some big corporation(s) adopting or outright developing it?
I don't need to preach to you about all the ways this sucks. The unfortunate pragmatic truth is that proprietary software is a poisoned, but quite appealing apple. The most common answer I got about FOSS is "yeah, it sounds great, but I don't care, I just want something that works for me."
Even if their proprietary system of choice got so bad to use that they'd switch to an open one, that doesn't mean they'd embrace the ideology. It just means that specific system does what they need it to. If iOS becomes unbearable, they may switch to Android, or perhaps to Windows phones, but they're still gonna install and use apps that feel good to use, regardless of whether they're FOSS.
The fight against proprietary software isn't going to be won on ideological grounds. I feel like some developers and advocates of FOSS miss that fact. If you want to be solid competition, worry about being a viable alternative first. Once people start to use a system that allows them to customise more, they may get intrigued by that liberty and become susceptible to the ideology behind, but unless they enjoy using it already, they'll never engage with it deeply enough.
No, if I find something offensive, I will combat it. Because the other side does the same, banning dissenting voices in their spaces, calling for violence against the libs and such.
I'll not engage the transphobia point because it's a reductionist take that strips context to make strawmen fit.
You're projecting pretty badly here, and since you keep using the suppression of differing opinions as qualifying trait to consider people fascists, I'm guessing the systematic killing of ethnic and sexual minorities seems like the lesser of their evils to you?
The whole point of making a federated network of independent instances is to avoid the issues arising with one central instance, right? Putting the content out to multiple instances plays into that: If it's important content, no single authority can easily censor it, and the loss of a single instance won't erase it.
If it's trash, of course, every community in every instance you post it to will have to clean it up separately. Arguably, that puts more strain on the respective moderation teams, but if (ideally) those are disjunct people (again, to avoid the issues of a single authority), the strain should be distributed.
And on the plus side, it would enable each community (in the lemmy sense) to enforce their own nuanced rules, additionally leading to slightly more choice between the types of moderation you favour (as opposed to "There's one big sub, take it or leave it").
Individual communities may be smaller, but maybe some more form of coordination of similar communities across instances could amend that (like linking to the other communities in your sidebar etc.).
I could also imagine a super-community solution that would allow you to aggregate several communities across instances similar to multireddits. I'm new here, so I'm not sure if that exists, nor have I given the implementation any thought, but I suppose that could be convenient.
The only winning move is to just offer a better solution and ignore him.
You'd think a better solution would be easy to find, but they spent so long indoctrinating their own followers to be loyal to names rather than concepts that they now fear these followers may attach to the Trump name.
You'll have to be more precise on the definition of God. There are quite a lot of them.
The existence of an abstract concept is provable by thinking of it. If there exists an idea that you call God, then a God exists. However, that proves nothing about its properties beyond its mere existence as an idea, including whether it pertains to any real thing. Likewise, all attributes you ascribe to that idea become part of the idea, but do not automatically prove anything about reality.
Thus, the question whether there is an idea called God is trivially answered by asking it at all, but has little bearing on anything at all.
What makes ideas useful is that they group properties, and what makes them real is that there exists an actual thing having all those properties.
Thus, the question whether a real thing exists depends on the properties of that thing, so let's tackle one:
Do I believe that there can be an omnipotent entity? No. The typical argument here is "Can God create a rock so heavy, They cannot lift it anymore?" Either answer contradicts the premise of omnipotence, unless that entity can create logical contradictions, in which case all argument and reasoning is moot anyway.
In particular, do I believe that some variation of the Abrahamic God exists? No, or at least none of those I'm aware of. That doesn't mean I'm not open to being shown otherwise.
However, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving God runs decidedly counter to the existence of suffering, even if we ignore (or exclude) the contradiction about omnipotence.
If we divide, we'll be conquered. That wisom is at least two thousand years old by now. Better to unite and defy.
"And this is why US-centrismis such a big problem in the internet. Everybody speaks Engliah, and the United States are the biggest in terms of English speakers. And through that a situation occurs where most users are seen as Americans, unless stated otherwise"
About right?
Maybe it will be enough to alert some of them to those issues? If the effects of corruption are felt more strongly, people may be more vocal about it and realise how many like-minded people there are. Then they may come to wonder how these bills keep getting passed if so many people oppose them.
Or they may keep their heads low for fear of sticking out and becoming the next target, or become dog-in-burning-house impersonators: "This is fine :)"
Disturbed - Legion of Monsters
You made sure the world will remember the name
But didn't the thought even enter your mind?
You′d give a new legion of monsters
A reason to take your life
The song originally is about a school shooting, but the point is the same
It's a copypasta, I've seen it on reddit before. I'm not sure if the original poster of that pasta was trolling too, but this one most definitely is making fun of them.
Reddit went from "I append site:reddit.com when querying google for well-founded and nuanced info" to the opposite.
I sorta do? My employer has been making commitments to improving things, and I'm involved in one of those projects, but they're a very slow ship to turn and I can't say I 100% stand behind what they're generally doing.
I joined out of a mix of necessity, opportunism and the chance to develop new skills, and grew to like the specific job I'm doing. I didn't have many choices for private reasons, but needed the money when I signed up, so in a way the money was good enough to compromise on ethics.
I got a permanent position now, and again, I stuck for personal reasons, to improve my future prospects and because I like the job, but for all the security a permanent position offers, I'm still planning to start looking for different opportunities when circumstances allow, unless the internal culture makes some masive progress in the next two years.
In the medium run? Not sure. I'd like to think I'd compromise money over ideology, but I also know that I tend to be selfish and really good at mental gymnastics to justify decisions. I would probably not sign on with Exxon, so there's definitely the severity of opposition to account for, but there isn't any clear line that I'd swear my life on. On the other hand, if the money was enough to support political causes that I feel (or tell myself) would weigh up the toll on my conscience, I might fold.
In the long run, I hope to get to a point where I can answer that with a firm "No". Maybe once life stabilises, I'll grow firmer in my convictions. Maybe once the question of pay shifts from covering necessities to the amount of luxury I can afford, the exact number will lose meaning. Maybe I'll find a place that I both support fully and earn enough at that any more would feel obscene anyway.
So basically, it comes down to the factors of
Wolfman dies, kills some monkeys, does some rope stuff, performs eye surgery and kills himself (depending on what ending you go for).