lmmarsano
@lmmarsano@group.lt
- Comment on Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse 18 hours ago:
Words can get someone involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Words can be used to take away rights. Words can affect national policy. Words were what Adolf Hitler used to send people to the concentration camps, and they’re what Donald Trump is using to do the same thing today. Words are extraordinarily dangerous.
Nah, none of those. All instances of harm require unnecessary action taken by choice. Words can be disregarded. Acting on words is the actor’s choice.
When we legitimise words that dehumanise the mentally ill
They’re not doing that. Moreover, using such words alone doesn’t do what you claim. There are a number of steps between a word you find offensive & adverse action: that argument is a slippery slope. Unless the words incite imminent action, people have an unbounded amount of time think & arrive to a decision before taking action. Any amount of discussion can occur during that time to influence & inform decisions. Rather than an overgeneralized attack on using a word, a more focused & coherent argument to support human rights could be raised.
Over relying on offense & emotion to steer their judgement discounts people’s capacity to reason & infantilizes them, which is condescending. Offense & emotion are not reliable guides of judgement. Speculation that it would promote better outcomes is not a valid argument. That such an approach would work better than reason is poorly supported. We could at least as plausibly appeal to reason rather than to offended emotion with the bonus of not irrationally overgeneralizing.
People can interpret context to draw distinctions & you’re overgeneralizing. The overgeneralization underpinning your offended opinion isn’t a valid argument. Neither is the speculation offered to support it. Telling people their words mean something they do not, disrespecting their moral agency & ability think, & insulting their intelligence to discern meaning is unpersuasive. Promoting a rational argument more specifically supporting the outcomes you favor would be more persuasive.
- Comment on Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse 1 day ago:
Are you making something not about yourself about yourself? That makes…perfect sense.
Ironically, it might support the author’s point. Now I’ve to reexamine how much this explains other social media interactions.
- Comment on Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse 1 day ago:
That’s going to get someone hurt. These words have just as much destructive potential, so we need to treat them the same way.
Offense isn’t harm: no one is getting hurt. You’re overstating the harm of expression by appealing to clinical language & understating the need for resilience & enough judgement to discern that in context, the word has a looser meaning. It’s a bit overdramatic.
Moreover, conventional language doesn’t operate the way you suggest: there’s no such rule about psychiatrists & “off limits”. No one is obligated to share your opinion on this: it’s not fact.
- Comment on Manager at Associated Press Tells Journalists That Resistance to AI Is Futile 1 day ago:
- Comment on The same people who rage against authority love moderating communities where their ideology is the only one allowed 1 week ago:
Y’all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right?
Bullshit genetic or reductio ad hitlerum fallacy. Carried to its logical conclusion, anything tainted by Nazis (eg, the universe) is a Nazi bar. Have you considered finding yourself another universe to inhabit, since this one is irredeemably tainted? While we may argue the universe is far too vast to be a “Nazi bar”, so is the internet or any “platform”.
Worse, censoring ideas gives them covert power. It doesn’t discredit them or strip them of power like challenging them in a public forum could. It’s also a disservice to better ideas
- it withholds opportunities for people to become competent enough advocates to discredit bad ideas
- instead of deradicalize opponents, it drives their discussion elsewhere: they continue to radicalize & grow opposition unchallenged.
Censorship is incompetent advocacy: it mistakes suppressing the expression of bad ideas for effective advocacy that directly discredits bad ideas, develops intellectual growth, and steers toward better ideas.
Paradox of intolerance?
The bogus social media version subverting the original message or the real one?
Image :::spoiler text alternativeThe True Paradox of Tolerance
By philosopher Karl Popper[^popper-source]
You think you know the Popper Paradox thanks to this? (👉 comic from pictoline.com)
Karl Popper: I never said that!
Popper argued that society via its institutions should have a right to prohibit those who are intolerant.
Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
For Popper, on what grounds may society suppress the intolerant? When they “are not prepared to meet on the level of rational argument” “they forbid their followers to listen to rational argument … & teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”. The argument of the intolerably intolerant is force & violence.
We misconstrue this paradox at our peril … to the extent that one group could declare another group ‘intolerant’ just to prohibit their ideas, speech & other freedoms.
Grave sign: “The Intolerant” RIP
Underneath it lies a pile of symbols for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Black power. A leg labeled tolerance kicks the Gay Pride symbol into the pile.Muchas gracias a @lokijustice y asivaespana.com ::: Karl Popper opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism.
Only cowards fear words. Words are not the danger. It’s the dangerous people whose words we fail to discredit.
[^popper-source]: Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl R. Popper
- Comment on Bluesky just verified ICE 1 week ago:
Well that’s fucking stupid when we know deplatforming works. Also you’re using specific definitions to deliberately misunderstand the paradox of tolerance so this is a stupid argument in the first place.
Your willful ignorance & stubborn denial of Karl Popper directly quoted writing is not a valid argument. Multiple references cited prove you wrong & you’ve cited nothing. Conventional definitions found here & all over the place (from wikipedia & to SEP) fit Karl Popper’s usage and prove you’re wrong. You’re just wrong.
A fucking high school intellect wrote that garbage article. Also, fuck pacifism, that’s a tool of fascists.
You should be troubled that highschooler can refute you: work on yourself.
And next time use your own words instead of a gpt.
Cool speculative ad hominem: beep boop. Try arguing better with logic & evidence next time, genius.
- Comment on Peter Thiel and other tech billionaires are publicly shielding their children from the products that made them rich 2 weeks ago:
Other tech CEOs, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Snap’s Evan Spiegel, and Tesla’s Elon Musk, have also spoken about limiting their children’s access to devices. Gates has said he did not give his children smartphones until age 14 and banned phones at the dinner table entirely. Snap CEO Evan Spiegel, in 2018, said he limits his child to the same 1.5 hours per week of screen time as Thiel.
Seems like these failures suing them & demanding government paternalism
Yet, as the trials against social media companies continue and country after country moves toward legislating what Silicon Valley’s billionaires have quietly practiced for years
don’t know how to effectively limit access/use parental controls as tech CEO’s claim to do.
- Comment on The creator of systemd wants your entire system validated by SecureBoot 2 weeks ago:
If the end user can arbitrarily sign code themselves that is bootable then it kind of defeats the purpose of secure boot.
They can & it doesn’t. They can change the platform key to become the platform owner & control the public keys they keep in the code signing databases. Secure Boot gives the platform owner control over authorized code signers of boot processes.
- Comment on Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem 2 weeks ago:
Maybe read about the French revolutionary National Assembly & where political left came from?
- Comment on Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem 2 weeks ago:
Yes: crack open a history book.
- Comment on Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem 2 weeks ago:
Liberalism was the original leftism: see the French revolutionary National Assembly. It doesn’t intrinsically have anything to do with capitalism. In general, liberalism is neither left nor right. It promotes individualism. Historically, it progressed from humanism.
leftism begins at anti-capitalism
Not the political science definition.
General definitions & the historical development of liberalism are academic.
liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.
Some of the earliest liberal practices are found in the US Declaration of Independence, which predates the French revolution spreading the practice of liberal ideals throughout Europe. The US declaration pretty much rehashes core tenets of liberal philosophy
- inherent equality of individuals
- universal individual rights & liberties
- consent of the governed (governments exist for the people who have a right to change & replace them, & authority is legitimate only when it protects those liberties).
Note how capitalism isn’t mentioned anywhere: it’s nonessential. Capitalism predates & isn’t liberalism. Liberalism is moral & political philosophy, not an economic one.
The philosophy is a natural progression of humanist philosophies from the Renaissance through the Protestant Reformation & the Enlightenment that stress the importance of individuality, secular reasoning, & tolerance over dogma & subservience to unaccountable authority. To address unaccountable authority based on dogma & traditions, English & French philosophers defined legitimate authority based on humanist morality pretty much as expressed in the US declaration. They argued that political systems thrive better with limits & duties on authority & an adversarial system of institutional competition whether in separation of powers, adversarial law system with habeas corpus & right to jury trial, competitive elections, dialogue, or economic competition.
- Comment on Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem 2 weeks ago:
1700s
When the liberals were the leftists?
- Comment on Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem 2 weeks ago:
If we rely on the logic of the German approach, we wouldn’t be able to call the thing a thing until its too late. The point being made is that if you wait long enough to be able to a full historical analysis, you’ve effectively become an apologist for genocide on the basis of a lack of evidence.
Untrue: it’s a matter of accurate wording. “The evidence so far indicates they’re potentially…” or “For all we know, they could be…” gets the same idea across without violating integrity concerning degree of certainty or knowledge.
Providing material support to Israel is no different from providing material support to Nazi Germany
Technically & literally false: they are different. A lawyer can challenge the falsehood.
Providing material support to Israel is bad for the same reasons providing material support to any genocidal state including Nazi Germany is bad
Providing material support to Israel is providing material support to a genocidal state
Providing material support to Israel is as bad as providing material support to a feebler Nazi Germany
All technically correct or opinion.
Claiming shit is true before we have the evidence to justify it is invalid & another way to state you’re claiming shit you don’t actually know: you’re spouting shit. Spouting shit is fine in cool countries that respect liberty. However, Germany is not one of them. Spouting the wrong shit in Germany is legally risky: apparently, the law parses words with autistic literalism.
By punishing verbal laziness, the law doesn’t necessarily “support genocide”. It is coercing you to stop being a slob & express yourself with (annoying?) accuracy.
- Comment on Dbzero has Defederated from Feddit.org following its Governance post about the later's Zionist Bar Problem 2 weeks ago:
Cool non-answer. What part of civility rules typical across lemmy such as dbzer0’s own
Don’t be shitty. i.e. telling people to kill themselves, or bad-jacketing is bannable.
allow exceptions for unhinged promotion of violence against commenters whom we unreasonably allege or “bad-jacket” as Zionist? Uncivil denunciations of Zionism are uncivil; therefore, moderators enforcing civility must prosecute. No evidence was given the moderators penalize civil denunciations of Zionism. Enforcing civility doesn’t imply Zionism.
This is basic logic. Denying basic logic implies staggering stupidity or dishonesty.
- Comment on When DinoCon is doing more than the US Gov 2 weeks ago:
What part of science is guilt by association fallacy? Rash judgement is at odds with science. Did you know criminals can associate with noncriminals?
To flip this around, ostracizing others “out of safety” for associating with ex-convicts (who had been processed & released to society) is morally compromised & dishonest, ie, immoral. Talking to someone who did something wrong doesn’t imply you did something wrong. Neither does taking their money. Indulging fallacies is not a hallmark of scientific thought & is more consistent with the repressive, medieval thought scientists fought very hard to overcome.
Sages of major religions famously associated with undesirables: outcasts, untouchables, murderers, dangerous felons, etc. By the “logic” of that announcement, communities should have banned Buddha & Jesus (also mentioned in the Epstein files). Those that didn’t were “deplorable” for “not taking firm action to protect” members “in light of” blanket “allegations” that fail to specifically accuse them. If they were sanctimonious enough, they too could have done “more”.
Post needs text alternative for image of text.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link: - usability - we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR - text search is unavailable - the system can’t - reflow text to varied screen sizes - vary presentation (size, contrast) - vary modality (audio, braille) - accessibility - lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc) - some users can’t read the image due to lack of alt text (markdown image description) - users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments - systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices - web connectivity - we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source - we can’t explore wider context of the original message - authenticity: we don’t know the image hasn’t been tampered - searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way - fault tolerance: no text fallback if - image breaks - image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations. Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
- Comment on Instagram boss: 16 hours of daily use is not addiction 2 weeks ago:
he repeatedly used technicalities and weaseley language to refuse to admit it
see
Yet, Mosseri repeatedly said he was not an expert in addiction in response to Lanier’s questioning.
Even if a nonexpert claims something is clinical addiction, they’re a nonexpert & their word is meaningless. For a credible statement, they’ll need to admit relevant evidence instead of ask a nonexpert.
Imagine being asked for a medical diagnosis when you’re not a qualified physician. It’s perfectly fair to point out you’re not an expert on the matter & point out your awareness of distinctions between imprecise conventional language & precise, scientific definitions.
No one is obligated to volunteer dubious claims to antagonize themselves on the stand just because you want them to.
- Comment on Instagram boss: 16 hours of daily use is not addiction 2 weeks ago:
This is sensationalist BS and I dearly want this platform to be better than that.
This platform loves sensationalism. Same with other platforms.
