Gaywallet (they/it) @ Gaywallet @beehaw.org

I'm gay

---

Read more

Posts

214

Comments

768

Joined

3 yr. ago

Moderating

---

As best as I can tell he's advocating for self defense against an individual who was intent on causing violence to peaceful protestors. There's a distinct difference between defending yourself against someone intent on causing violence and harm to innocent individuals and advocating for violence against innocent individuals. In addition, we very clearly state in our documents that it is okay and good and cool and correct to be intolerant of the intolerant.

It's not common sense, that's a common false judgement applied to people with less means - it's a value judgement and diminishes their struggle. This is a reminder to be nice on our instance.

Did you even read the article? It explains the science of how dietary fat is used in the body, cites studies which find optimal numbers for each sub-process and provides suggested guidelines for each section as well as overall. To say the answer is "we don't really know" is a really weird stance given all this information.

As an aside this is the Science community, please don't leave frivolous comments which do not attempt to discuss the science or do not start a productive conversation.

To anyone who's confused about this article or reporting it for being transphobic, if it is unclear, the article is highlighting how the NYT is not a source to be trusted and pointing out the numerous ways in which they are compromising journalistic integrity in order to push their transphobic views. This is explicitly a criticism, itemizing all the ways that the NYT rightfully should be criticized for their biased and harmful reporting on transgender issues.

Advocating for violence is not nice. This is your warning.

reminder to be nice on our instance

While this is receiving a lot of attention, it's not exactly news. This better belongs in chat or something a bit more offtopic.

My dude Scalia died years ago lmao

If we do allow this type of net neutrality violations

We already allow it and it is normal practice. We don't have laws which protect net neutrality, in fact, we have laws which do the opposite in the USA and in nearly every country. Saying that every LGBT+ website will be taken down because we aren't choosing to jump to the defense of KF which has always had zero protections is absurd.

lol, absolutely lmao

I'm really struggling how to see this is a good faith interpretation of what I said

This is asking we put the responsibility of that arbitration in the hands of Spectrum and AT&T. Take a minute and think about that.

No, they already have that responsibility and are already arbitrating it. ISPs already block content. This is the existing system working entirely how it was designed.

Do I want a better system? Yes. But we don't have it. So let's not defend assholes who don't deserve it until we've created a system which protects the people we want it to.

Ideas don't have to exist in absolution. Many people oppose murder, but are also okay with murdering convicted criminals. It's also possible to believe in laws yet allow them to be violated when a system isn't perfect. One can believe in net neutrality and wish deeply for it, but also recognize that it does not currently exist and to be okay with (or even endorse) people using the system to disenfranchise bad actors because they believe it is the best solution currently available.

Real tangible harm was caused by KF - the burden of education is on everyone who chooses to open their mouth about this issue in the same way that we expect people to be reasonably knowledgeable about minorities before talking about them. We chastise companies and people for taking tone deaf stances on all sorts of issues all the time, because they should know better. They chose to open their mouth about a group which caused a lot of violence in the world, it's their responsibility to be educated on how to approach the subject tactfully.

They could have fairly trivially provided links to charities which exist to offset this harm. They could have trivially talked about how the police system is currently failing to protect minorities and others disenfranchised by the existing system that has no net neutrality. They didn't do these things. For such a large company and a non-profit with the reach that they have, they need to be better than this.

At what point did I say or even imply that we should give up on net neutrality?

There's a big difference between explicitly endorsing something and not making a blog post about it. Hell there's even a big difference between making a better blog post about this and this nonsense they put up. As I just stated in a reply to someone else right above you, despite all the issues the link in this post addresses, my other issue with the EFF post is how tone deaf it is.

I'm not saying that they can't point this out as an issue and I'm aware that it's in line with their absolutist beliefs on the internet being a public utility, but they spend an awfully small amount of time discussing the real and tangible harm that KF has brought to this world. They could also have spent more of their words on these other issues when bringing up KF. As I stated it's about how tone deaf this seems to me that's so off-putting about it.

I agree that the internet should be a public utility, but it's not, and if I'm gonna be spending efforts focused on trying to make it a public utility I want those efforts to go towards instances which are worth the time. If it was already a public utility and this was a real threat to it continuing to be a public utility, that would be a very different situation.

It would be cool if we had net neutrality, but we have a bunch of laws which already fly in the face of that. Maybe work on dismantling those? Maybe make your blog posts about the minorities which are having their voices already removed by the existing system? Maybe talk about how police fail to follow-through? It's weird to be focusing on defending a website which proliferates hate and causes real harm, when you could instead be using your limited resources to help out people who deserve it. KF isn't suing. No one is suing the tier 1 ISP. Why make the stand here? It reads as completely tone deaf to me.

The system is failing right now. People are exercising any means to get the system to listen. When someone in the system finally listened, the response is to complain that action is happening? Is this ideal? No, but also these aren't public utilities. We don't have laws which make them such. We don't have protections to ensure the utilities don't cause harm (there's no obligation to provide power to someone who wired their own home, not up to code because we want to protect our public utilities). Furthermore this gets complicated in terms of who's hosting the content versus who's routing it - we might not allow a utility company to shut off power, but we certainly allow the police to do so and we give them instructions on how and when to do it.

Why is the EFF grandstanding and making a blog post about this specific issue when there are so many other examples, including ones that they quite literally link to, where real harm is being caused? KF isn't suing, this isn't an announcement about how they are going to provide legal support. This is the system working exactly how it has always worked, and they decide to make this the hill that they wish to die on? There's a thousand other hills already present why aren't they getting blog posts?

This isn't relinquishing control. We never had it. Maybe focus on that? Maybe focus on how things could be better? How the system should work? We don't need to make a martyr out of these assholes.

Completely agree with everything this person iterates.

In case anyone missed it, the thread about the EFF post is over here

Look I hate the guy plenty, too, but this isn't exactly solid ground to start a discussion with. The article provides plenty of ground to talk about linguistics or at the very least not just hate on him. I think it's important to point out that he was not just a deplorable person, but that the very reasoning he used to argue in favor of his points was not based in reality.