Knightfox
@Knightfox@lemmy.world
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 23 hours ago:
OK, so you need to reach a threshold of 5% of the population before you’re allowed to have rights, got it.
You’re just attacking me, not my argument
If if was just a matter of a handful of business owners being racists, then those racist businesses would be out-competed by non-racist businesses that appeal to everyone
You skipped the whole counter argument (comparing to scabs and unions) that this lacks the social structure to support that behavior. If you tried to open a business that wasn’t racist then the racist people would come and threaten you, this isn’t happening with the Uber situation.
Because it isn’t! The scenario you described is literally the exact sort of thing the Civil Rights Act exists to stop! You are literally advocating for allowing denial of service based on protected classes!
The thing is that Uber is not performing any discrimination, they are enabling other people to discriminate against each other and attempting to still provide service through it. Claiming that Uber is discriminating is functionally not true.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 23 hours ago:
You’re being pedantic, they don’t care as it pertains to whether they will provide you with service. They do care so that they can match yours and other people’s requests.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 1 day ago:
The difference in what I am saying and what you are saying is scale and you are completely ignoring the rest of my argument. The scale at which you would have to be a minority for this to impact you significantly is somewhere in the 1-5% range (as in your minority is only this percentage of the local population) with the assumption that the other 95-99% are opposed to you. This is why Uber providing this as an option is different from the cases which the Civil Rights Act was based around. Hell, this is why scabs are effective against unions as well.
A diner not serving black people is impactful because a handful of people are the business owners and are effectively gating you out. Uber allowing those people to select only a specific preference means that anyone who doesn’t set restrictions will break that system and actually benefit from it (more business).
This also goes both ways and is potentially international, Japanese could choose not to serve non-Japanese, a black person could choose not to serve white people for comfort or security.
You’re fundamentally not understanding why Uber allowing people to make this decision is not the same as 1960’s segregation.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 1 day ago:
But that’s not how Uber works, Uber pairs drivers with riders and has no guarantee for service even now. If I open my app and there are not drivers available then no service will be provided, this isn’t Uber discriminating.
Uber doesn’t care what your race, gender, or political leaning is, they want to provide you the service you want. So long as the option goes both ways this only hurts the people who opt into the program, not everyone else. The only way this could hurt others would be if those who choose to opt in (as in they only want a certain thing) get priority in the scheduling or if you live somewhere where you are the overwhelming minority.
In the first example, if you say you only want female riders so the system sends you every woman that comes into the system instead of putting you in the same queue as everyone else but skipping you if the next client doesn’t match your preference. In this case you are being skipped in the allocation of riders and actually missing opportunities due to your preference.
In the second example, if you are one of the 10 black people still living in a sun down town then getting Uber rides is probably not your biggest problem.
Even now, Uber drivers are independent contractors and can cancel service whenever they want. If the driver pulls up and thinks you’re sketchy they can cancel the ride, there is no obligation.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 1 day ago:
I mean, as a company whose business is pairing riders with drivers, it begs the questions why this isn’t already an option so long as drivers can also choose not to drive for people flagged as a certain way. If a MAGA person only wants white people driving for them then that will reduce the effectiveness of the app for them, provides service for someone who otherwise would be difficult as a customer, and it prevents them from harassing or bothering potential victims.
If I want to, as a driver or rider, I think I should be able to choose not to be driven by someone who has been flagged by others as overly visible. That might mean someone who won’t shut up about MAGA while I or they driver, it might be someone who has 15 bumper stickers about their beliefs, or it might be someone who has their car wrapped with Hatsune Miku. The consequence of this decision might mean that I have to wait an extra 15 min for a ride or it might mean that because of my actions people no longer wish to ride with me.
Yes, I think that’s a good idea.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 1 day ago:
I don’t think it’s technically discrimination. Uber is a middle man business which pairs independent contractors with paying customers. If the customers or contractors have a preference then all it’s doing are matching those preferences.
More likely than not this will actually lead to those who use this option to have substandard service (either slower response or less available rides) than those who do not.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 1 day ago:
Men would only choose their riders gender for bigotry reasons
That’s not necessarily true though. Many men also feel more comfortable with another man in a variety of situations. Prostate exam, counseling, and barber are all good examples. Some guys are just super awkward with women and might not want to feel awkward while paying for a ride. Hell with the severity an accusation of wrong doing can have some men might not want to ride solo with a woman they don’t know.
The same goes for women, not all women choosing this setting are doing so for safety, sometimes people have a preference. Uber is organizing willing independent contractors to the preference of paying customers. If the customer states they want a specific gender as their driver I don’t see why that would be a problem so long as both parties are fine with that.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 3 days ago:
First of all, it’s NY State, not NYC, and Article 35.10 of the Penal Code says you are allowed to use physical force for self-defense or in the defense of others, but the very next clause is 35.15 which says that you have a duty to retreat unless there is immediate danger.
In a NY court of law you could argue that you were acting in the defense of others, but you would not be able to prove that there was imminent danger.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 4 days ago:
In no court in the world would you be able to say you were acting in self-defense while acting from 6000 km away.
- Comment on Man posts his incorrect opinion online 4 weeks ago:
It fascinates me that people care this much.
- Comment on Your teenager AND your husband 4 weeks ago:
I remember a reddit post from forever ago where the guy said that the grocery store had asked his mom to let them know when their son went to college because him leaving would impact the quantities of chocolate milk they stocked.
- Comment on 1 month ago:
The same reason why the British still use miles and stone. For some other archaic units still commonly used see horsepower, nautical mile, BTUs, acres, shots (volume), and knots (speed).
Most people use the units they grew up with or use every day as their primary colloquial units. If you grew up using inch, foot, or yard, and enough people around you can also use the unit, it doesn’t change anything in your day to day to continue to use them. It also doesn’t make sense to change what you use and already know if that is also what the people around you use and already know.
That said, Americans do know metric units and many use them every day, they just don’t typically use them when talking to other Americans. If the basis of your argument is US produced media then it just goes to show you don’t really know anything about everyday US culture. Also, why would US media, made for a US audience, with US characters use a unit that most Americans don’t colloquially use?
Complaining about US media containing Imperial Units is like if I watch a Spanish movie and complain about people speaking Spanish instead of English.
- Comment on 1 month ago:
Shh, the non-American’s believe the US doesn’t understand metric at all and if you tell them otherwise they won’t be able to circle jerk.
- Comment on DuckDuckGo poll says 90% responders don't want AI 1 month ago:
On DuckDuckGo that is unsurprising
- Comment on Denominator, go Mercator 1 month ago:
Eh, I doubt that’s the case. It could be a 20 m^2 area, but if it had Greenland’s resources they would want it.
- Comment on YSK: A real American Civil war will NOT be like Battlefield or COD. 1 month ago:
I think that’s all well and good unless you are wrong. From my perspective I think you are wrong, but maybe you aren’t. As things sit the people that are on your side think they are in trouble and want outside help, but you are saying “you’ll be fine.” The US has historically been the interventionist in the first world, but now they are in need of intervention. This has been the soul of the Republican argument for a long time, the US intervenes and the rest of the world does nothing. Now the Republican’s want to pull aid from allies and intervene (cough invade) only when it benefits them.
At there very least Europe needs to pick up the slack the US is dropping, even if they don’t go the extra mile to help fix the US. At the end of the day the US is steering towards needing foreign interventions, a civil war, or devolving into a totalitarian regime. Meanwhile the rest of the world is watching and wondering why we don’t just fix ourselves. I’ll tell you the sensible answer, I’m renewing my passport and making sure I have enough money for a last minute flight out of the country.
- Comment on YSK: A real American Civil war will NOT be like Battlefield or COD. 1 month ago:
I feel like what you are touching at is that liberals in the US, and Americans in general, are waiting for a touch stone. So far nothing has gone so far as to start the fire. On the other hand there has been no centralizing ember, someone to carry the torch.
Yes, the US has a long history of minority organizing, but minorities are one of the worst groups for turning out for elections (in fact minorities are more likely to turn out if they are voting for Republicans than they are for anyone else, a key element of being a conservative in the US is turning out to vote but liberals can’t seem to harness that energy).
The US doesn’t have the baggage as you mentioned, but the existence of the two party system carries a ton of baggage on it’s own and has effectively squashed most third party resistance.
Most American’s do believe in Democracy, but sadly one half is too stupid to know what it is and the other half only believes in it when it supports their ideas. The second group is one which would happily ban all abortions and then complain when a woman can’t get an abortion even though the pregnancy is killing her. My very own cousin is white trash poor with his children living on government assistance, but thinks we need to end welfare because the minorities are using it. These people are too stupid for governance.
To your final point, the US left needs a leader, a cult of personality to combat Trump, but there frankly isn’t anyone right now. So far no one high enough up in the social circle has been willing to stick their head out far enough to rally around.
I hate to say it, but the US is at the point where we need a life line. Just like the US coming in and occupying Germany to eliminate the Nazis, we now need an outside force to help fix our shit. Short of that the US needs another civil war, but I’m not so certain that it will go the way we want it.
- Comment on YSK: A real American Civil war will NOT be like Battlefield or COD. 1 month ago:
The problem is that the steps between zero and a hundred are incremental rights which take decades to establish. If you are a non-American then you might have those steps already established, but currently the US does not. So once the status quo passes beyond the acceptable parameters the only possible solution is violence.
Another user I spoke with asked about collective rebellion, union strikes, and general resistance, but these don’t work if the infrastructure isn’t already in place. You can’t start a strike if you don’t have a union and your co-workers don’t agree, you can’t take up arms without at least a state level rebellion, most protests are effectively meaningless, and unless you are willing to give up everything (job, family, and well being) then you’ll never amount a significant resistance.
For the most part people want to live their lives with the least amount of fucking up they can. So long as the republican’s don’t fuck up their shit too much they will keep their heads down and vote in the elections.
Democrats and states both follow the same rules. They will try to counter the Republicans, but if that means a government shutdown with old people and the poor going without assistance then they are willing to cave. So far we aren’t at the point where any US group is willing to make real sacrifice to make a change, such as a fighting, going without, or causing their family to suffer.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 2 months ago:
Then the outcome of that decision is inevitably war, except all of the worlds largest militaries are controlled by the intolerant countries.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 2 months ago:
The proper equivalent scenario would instead be someone making a hack that amplified and encouraged equality and tolerance……which doesn’t happen.
That’s not the same and it’s not even the argument lol. My argument was that you’re tying whether a crime was committed based on who it was against rather than what was done and your response was if what was done is different then it isn’t a crime.
So the law is already not being applied equally, and “the high ground” of tolerating intolerance simply backfires. That is exactly the paradox.
Except that the flaw is in the law itself. Enforcement of the law in this case is not properly established to prevent the faithless action, but the conclusion of your argument is that because the law isn’t working we should abandon those laws.
I’ll further argue that the Paradox of Intolerance, used in this instance, implies that if we do not tolerate intolerance we can effectively snuff it out or meaningfully prevent it and thus we do not have to tolerate intolerance at all. The sad fact is that that is not true unless you are willing to cull opposing opinions. Whether you do so within your own country or if it spreads into nation state conflicts, if you fail to tolerate intolerance you inherently move toward the assumption of violence.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 2 months ago:
You’re still not getting it.
You’re talking about measured health impacts on an overall population not about ideologies. The idea that other ideologies are anti-social or harmful precludes the idea that your view of society is the correct one. That works out fine so long as you maintain the majority, but if the tides of time change against you then the very opposite would be true.
A rural community of racist white people in the US aren’t anti-social or harmed by their view until that dynamic changes, such as a person of color entering the community. Objectively that community lacks diversity of experience which promotes growth and development in the community (this is referencing your discussion about objective measures), but the desire to not change is part of why we these people are called conservatives and isn’t fundamentally wrong. The thing you are repeatedly missing is that calling these ideologies anti-social or undesirable and not deserving of protection under the law only is your express opinion, not an objective truth, and you only support this opinion so long as you remain part of the in crowd. If the situation were reversed your opinion on whether all ideologies deserve the protection of law would reverse as well.
You’re operating under some sort of legislation=ethics and morals framework that’s flawed in incredibly fundamental ways. Any ideology that violates the social contract cannot be protected by it.
It’s quite the opposite, I’m declaring that legislation is not equal to ethics. Ethics function purely on an implied social contract whereas laws function on explicit statements. Laws allow people of opposing opinions to coexist and instead of relying on implied incompatible social contracts they all have equal protection under the law. This by nature is the difference between Just and Fair or Equality and Equitable.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 2 months ago:
I feel like you are not understanding that the determination of which ideologies are harmful and aren’t is ultimately a matter of opinion and you only support it so long as you agree with the outcome. Iran, China, North Korea, and many other countries are examples of the other side of your argument.
I’m not saying that ideologies are intrinsic characteristics, I’m saying that people have the right to believe in what they want to believe and that belief, regardless of what it is, is an intrinsic characteristic. Some countries might not have freedom to express those beliefs but that’s literally denying rights.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 2 months ago:
Sending a link with no additional context doesn’t make a point. What are you trying to say with this?
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 2 months ago:
It’s kinda hard to claim self defense when you are launching the attack to someone in another country. If you flipped the situation around and a radical conservative hacker in Russia hacked an LGBTQ site you would immediately call that a crime. The only difference is ideological and who controls the power to determine which ideology is correct.
I feel strongly that rules and laws should be enforced equally and that you can’t put them on a spectrum. Here is another example; when Democrats were found to have potentially taken top secret files, by accident or not, the party had to investigate them with the same level of conviction as they had with Trump because failing to do so undermined their own argument.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 2 months ago:
You’re right, using a slippery slope argument is a type of logical fallacy, but for it to be a logical fallacy it has to preclude a result and also be implausible in it’s steps.
My argument was did not preclude a result and was more a statement of fundamental change in the nature of law. If you change the application of laws from a definite system (the law applies to everyone) to a spectrum (the law applies to some people) then you are now on a slippery slope where as before you were not. As to the plausibility of the argument, we are literally seeing this effect in real time with Trump. Laws switched from being definite to being suggestions and now no one is truly certain what laws do apply and to who.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 2 months ago:
Yeah it does, even mass murders are due the process of law and protections under it. We don’t drag murderous sociopaths into the public square and execute them without trials. You can’t fight for fair and equal rights while also saying other people aren’t entitled to those same rights.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 2 months ago:
Laws are supposed to be just and equal, it is a common mistake in believing that they should be equitable or that they will be implemented justly or equally.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 2 months ago:
I agreed with another comment that this is probably not cyber terrorism, because definitions of cyber terrorism indicate a wide spread impact on people while this only impacts a relatively small group. Your definition isn’t quite right either as one potential goal for cyber terrorism is to cause disruption or fear. Terrorism as a general term may be politically motivated but it doesn’t have to have the goal of influencing policy directly. Technically revenge can be a goal of terrorism.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 2 months ago:
You’re probably right, I went back and double checked the definition of cyber terrorism and the main difference is scale of impact. To be cyber terrorism it would probably have to impact a larger group of people.
- Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference 2 months ago:
Ideologically there is a lot of difference between sovereign citizens and anarchists, but functionally there is not. One is delusional in their disbelief of a state while the other believes that a state shouldn’t exist. At the end of the day both are opposed to the proper function of government.
That’s literally the risk we all face.
No it’s not, the vast majority of law abiding citizens are not at risk in any legal based county. Even if the laws of the country change, so long as you follow the laws you are at little risk. There are exceptions of course, but the majority of people do not face that risk.
Look at all the law abiding immigrants in America who are rotting in concentration camps because the one with the keys to the kingdom changed.
Look, I’m against putting people in concentration camps but this isn’t the argument we were having. If you want to use that example then immigrants who aren’t committing crimes but are not in the US under legal methods are still technically criminals. I will happily agree with you that their treatment isn’t right, but their status as illegal immigrants is still true. If you want to talk about legal immigrants and US citizens who have been detained or deported then that also has happened, but that is more a function of US officials breaking the law. You don’t go to Russia with a vape pen and expect not to be arrested because you’re an American or famous. Likewise you don’t go to China and call Xi Weenie the Pooh and expect to not get fucked with.
If your argument is that a government in the world is breaking the law then it’s ok for a private citizen in another country to break the law then you’re truly delusional. Hey, North Korea starved a bunch of people, and Iran killed a bunch of women who didn’t want to wear veils, so it’s ok for a guy in my country to hack a hate group in China.
That argument is ridiculous as well.