Senal @ Senal @programming.dev

Posts

1

Comments

223

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ah i think i see.

That quote is not from my post, i think you meant to reply to the OP.

I don't think understand what you are asking, would you mind adding a bit more detail please ?

Question, and this may not be the perfect place for this, but is it the phrasing that LGBTQ is a mental “illness” that’s the problem here, or that it’s a mental attribute at all?

There are many possible reasons why people might be upset at this change.

For example, loosening the moderation and restrictions like this it empowers people who are coming at this specifically with malice in mind to act with impunity.

I’m an LGBT supporter, so I’m not coming at this from a place of malice, I suppose it’s curiosity and ignorance. Don’t we basically understand that the way we function as humans is all a part of our brain chemistry, and that certain deviations from the norm cause things like ADD, homosexuality, musical creativity, etc etc?

That's a complicated question, with a lot of what i would consider reductive phrasing.

"Deviations from the norm" would imply that there is a specific baseline "norm" to point at, when it's much more of a vague idea of what is average, which changes over time and with increased understanding/study.

Grouping ADD, homosexuality and musical creativity together is also a bit of a stretch IMO.

ADD can be classified as a divergence from the very rough average baseline of brain function, but even then it encompasses a wide range of differences and these differences vary from person to person.

This is evidenced by how they diagnose these conditions ( ADD, ASD, Anxiety disorder etc), which is through questionnaires and assessments by professionals.

It's not a

"You tick the 10 ADD boxes so you get the label" kind of thing,

it's more

"You exhibit enough of these wide range symptoms with a large enough difference from the vague baseline that we would put you roughly in to this category"

Opinions on homosexuality being nature vs nurture vs "some other thing" is a whole other giant kettle of fish.

And musical "talent" can have many sources, depending on your definition.

The word illness seems way too strong, as we as a society have decided we don’t have anything against that personal trait/lifestyle/whatever

It's commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.

Look up what they used to call "Hysteria" and what that enabled them to justify as "medical procedures".

I'm sure there are people who legitimately think it's some sort of illness but i'd put my money on the majority just being arseholes using it as an excuse.

but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?

Depends on if you consider homosexual behaviour as something unnatural.

My personal opinion is that anything we do is "natural" as we are a part of nature, not outside of it.

Putting that argument aside however, there are instances of homosexual behaviour in animals other than humans.

It also heavily depends on your definition of "abnormal", for instance, would you consider left-handedness a mental abnormality ?

Again I don’t want to get caught up in feelings here, because I think people will hear that and take offence to it since no one wants to be “abnormal”

They might take offence because words have contextual meaning associated with them.

The strict definition of the word abnormal isn't particularly useful here , it's only when it's given context that it makes sense.

My view is that the word "abnormal" when used in the context of homosexuality has been continually used as a weapon, a way to normalise and justify bigotry.

If you establish up front what it is exactly you mean (for me this would need to include what you mean by "normal"), then you might get more positive responses.

but that is the concensus is it not?

As far as i understand it, no, it is not.

I somewhat agree with most of that, that particular brand of toxic masculinity is gaining traction and that is a problem.

Let's not pretend that this is new though, almost the entirety of modern western civilization has been patriarchal to a fairly extreme degree, this is just the latest flavour.

I'm not dismissing the current problems with all of that, just pointing out that the problem of enforced gender/sex specific division isn't new these are just the latest grifters, it's also not specific to men ,with differing problems for all sides.

This is a systemic societal problem and will almost certainly need solutions that acknowledge that, otherwise you are treating only the symptoms.

None of which is an actual answer to my original question.

That would imply an "essence" of masculinity that was not defined by it's lack of femininity.

That somebody would be pushed towards an ideal of masculinity and dissuaded from an ideal of femininity implies that both exist.

Not necessarily completely separate, but still existing at least partially individually.

I'm still confused over what is meant by

The essence of being male is to not be female.

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious or i have some bias getting in the way of my understanding.

This is what I have been saying for a long time: The essence of being male is to not be female.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, would you mind elaborating ?

Fair enough, i could probably also do with being a bit less sarcastic to things that might just be honest mistakes.

As a genuine question, what point are you maintaining, I've lost the thread and don't know which one you mean?

Wait, seriously....no..that can't possibly be true...

You do understand that the word trump exists outside of the name.... Right?

Oh my, im glad you didn't read the rest of it, so many complicated words.

Good luck, you are absolutely going to need it

You probably want to keep to DM's if you don't want conversation on a public message board.

Though I suppose a demonstrated lack of understanding of how public message boards work gives me my answer so, thanks.

Mathematically, probably yes.

Ethically and morally, debatable.

To be clear, i'm asking a very specific question about a very specific statement.

when you say :

So, yay for you! You got fat by stuffing your giant mouth in an attempt to fill the hole in your brain, and lost the weight. Congratulations. It still has nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism.

Are you claiming that basic CICO, which is peer reviewed science has "nothing to do with the current state of understanding of human metabolism."

or was that just poor phrasing ?

Describe "real" rationality ?

I genuinely can't infer what you mean from that statement.

That's a lot of words to say "my beliefs trump basic science".

Peer review reproduction is a bit of a shambles tbh, so not the silver bullet people make it out to be in some fields, agreed.

So let's leave the science aside for now and focus on what you are proposing.

"Just eat less" is about as productive as "Just don't be sad" or "Just stop drinking alcohol", technically correct but woefully inadequate as a practical solution for most people.

edit: before you get even more angry i'm not saying that eating less and exercising more doesn't work, actually read the statement.

Aside from anecdotes and "trust me bro", what knowledge have you shared so far, what solutions ?

I'm legitimately willing to listen to something you can even halfway prove.

That's an interesting perspective.

You think they'd form on their own? or we shouldn't be getting to the point where they are needed or something else entirely ?

I'm not into any of the assistant ecosystems, they creep me out too much to have them listening in.

I've got my HA instance set up for independent VA integrations and I've had a few tries and using pi's with microphone and speaker hats as custom endpoints, they worked okay-ish but it fell by the wayside eventually and i've just been waiting on this kind of first party-promoted kind of announcement to get back in to it.

IIRC the home assistant android app has VA functionality built in.

Not sure if it works in the same way as this box though.

To clarify, I don’t believe in the creation of any deliberately biased system.

As in you don't believe it's possible for a biased system to exist or you don't think it's possible to do it deliberately, something else ?

but I believe the main societal issue is overwhelmingly one of wealth disparity.

I agree, and the idea of providing a baseline humanitarian standard of living isn't impossible it's just very unlikely without some hefty and painful foundational changes to how societies are currently working.

I’m not assigning a moral value when I use the phrase “disproportionate benefit”. I’m alluding to the disproportionate degree of poverty experienced by African-Americans. Poverty relief should therefore benefit them more. If there was no differential distribution of wealth with respect to race, the benefits of poverty relief would be neutral with respect to race.

Additionally, the person I responded to is very clearly describing a situation related to a student’s socioeconomic status. I absolutely believe some kind of “blind” application process is necessary to minimise the impact of a number of possible prejudices held by the admissions team.

Fair enough, it seems i entirely misunderstood what you meant, my apologies.

In a system where inherent racism didn't exist that would work, are you assuming that the current system wouldn't disproportionately skew the beneficiaries to the existing racial bias for some reason ?

That just gives you the same problem, a step down in the chain.

Systemic racism doesn't start once you hit a threshold of income, targeting the poor will still skew towards whatever biases exist in the system.

disproportionately benefit African-Americans

Either you don't understand why African-Americans would need additional help or you are framing it that way on purpose.

By what metric are you getting "disproportionate" ?

continuing to perpetuate the idea that skin colour is somehow the most important thing about people

It sounds like systemic racism is over so we can all just go back to seeing everyone as equals. /s

Again, either you have a fundamental misunderstanding or are purposely framing it that way.

To be clear, these measures aren't "skin color is most important so let's base policy on that aspect"

they are closer to

"The system is actively using skin colour and ethnicity to detrimentally target people who should really be equal in standing, let's not pretend that that isn't happening and try to address it"

Is that a thing you have to apply to some formal committee for?

Or do we have to ask you specifically whether or not it qualifies?

Ooh maybe there's ASCII symbol for it like ® or © ?

In my setup only three of them are altered from the default values.

privacy.resistFingerprinting privacy.resistFingerprinting.block_mozAddonManager privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing

"privacy.resistFingerprinting" is the one i was talking about specifically, which works for me in the scenarios detailed in my response.

It's been a while since i setup this install but i know i used the arkenfox scripts as a baseline.

I have no idea how much deviation i have for the default baseline so YMMV greatly.

I only mentioned that setting because it's one i use to fix my specific problems and it might help as a starting point.