I think the problem is more that given the short attention span of the general public (myself included), these "definitions" (I don't believe that slavery can be "defined" as good, but okay) are what's going to stick in the shifting sea of discourse, and are going to be picked out of that sea by people with vile intentions and want to justify them.
It's also an issue that LLMs are a lot more convincing than they should be, and the same people with short attention spans who don't have time to understand how they work are going to believe that an Artificial Intelligence with access to all the internet's information has concluded that slavery had benefits.
In case I was unclear, I meant it more as "people think that nothing can be done". I was addressing the overall sentiment of many of these comments that seemed so betrayed that their constitution didn't protect them from climate change.
I don't think there is a constitutional right to not get hit by giant meteors either.
I think the need to peg action to constitutional rights is a very uniquely American thing. In most other countries a simple addition to the legislature might suffice, whereas here if it's not in a constitution written many years before climate change became a popularly known thing, suddenly nothing can be done.
Then possibly something needs to change - add a new Amendment or something. But to claim that old laws written with an old understanding of how the world works needs to somehow carry the semantic weight of something it was never written to do seems a bit much.
I think comparing vaping to drinking water is disingenuous - it is not needed and has active harms. Just because one thing is less harmful than another doesn't mean we can't regulate both heavily.
I guess the difference is we expect humans to fuck up, but autonomous driving is meant to eventually be the thing that replaces that and stops us fucking up.
I get his point though - just wearing one of them really has no LGBT affiliation: it just looks like a monochromatic watch. Maybe it's that subversion that Malaysia is afraid of.
There's a reason people evolved altruistic reactions and tendencies, and that's because on some level, altruism and trust in a community is good. How could anyone trust anyone else in a society where backstabbing is essentially the norm? Building giant projects like power plants could not exist without humongous inefficiencies if everyone were to constantly be trying to insure themselves from everyone else's manipulation and making sure that they have a slice of the power pie and are not beholden to anyone else. If a society of Good people are all able to trust each other beyond any doubt (because Good people are inherently trustable), they can actually do insanely long-term plans knowing that those following them will continue to meet their obligations. Resources will be split more evenly ensuring maximisation and therefore a larger force.
Your example is also incredibly simplistic because nobody wins in a nuclear scenario, and that's why Good would be opposed to it. It doesn't mean they're against other means of stopping the issue that don't contravene international laws (which, by the way, would be 100% made by Good people because Evil people would have no reason to be a party to any of these treaties).
If nuclear war happens, everyone loses.
With conventional war, it's a wash, but I'd give it to Good, with one side having harsher tactics (but also a chance of internal conflicts and opportunistic coups) while the other side has more resources but may only fight defensive wars.
With no war, Good wins - seems like a win for Good to me overall. The only problem is in real life it's much harder to separate the Good from the Evil, and most people (myself included, probably) are somewhere in between.
I don't think OP is guilty of this, but a lot of people think that current AI-generated content is going to sound like something that doesn't know how to be human or what humour is. That's a fundamental misunderstanding, I believe, that thinks that the LLMs that are popular now have any kind of actual sentience, and simply lack experience or understanding.
Fundamentally, they'll instead sound like exactly the most average or boring (but informed) person, except maybe a bit more repetitive, because they're trained on data and not coming up with independent thoughts. Someone who writes in a unique way and has a unique sense of humour is far less likely to be an AI than the average (yet somehow more accepted) everypost.
I don't have any skin in the game, as I don't use the app nor any other, but the userbase for the Fediverse is like a hundred times smaller than Reddit at least. The same work on Reddit that could earn $200 is only going to earn $2 here.
I don't know what the price should be, but it makes sense that it goes up.
In another very real sense, their users chose the instance they're on. People were asking at the beginning what the difference between each instance was. This is how the admins have chosen to administrate and moderate. Maybe it's the users who should recognise that the shoe is on the other foot.
Fwiw though, I don't disagree with the choice to defederate.
The concern is rarely the people who are engaging and discussing with a critical mind, but the silent majority that consume with less time for criticality. As we've seen on Reddit, hive opinions end up prevailing on any site that is algorithmically sorted, and if one side has the numbers and dogged persistence to filibuster harder, it doesn't matter if there is intellectual pushback; a culture war can be won on memes alone.
I think that's generally the danger with allowing all "facts" in the name of critical discussion. Jokes are funny until suddenly they aren't jokes anymore, and implications are debatable until a consensus, rather than independent analysis, declares them fact. That's pretty much the internet.
At least on other instances, they may be subject to more stringent moderation. It's easy to say "just ban them" when you're not the one who will have to manage all 20000 of them.
Math determined that dropping the bombs saved more lives than invasion through conventional means.
I'd be hesitant to trust the math too far, especially since it's based on many assumptions as to how the war would have played out despite one side being severely outgunned.
Call me an anti-military cynic, but I'm sure a bit of it was also the idea that they now had a nuke, and wanted to see what kind of damage it could do. Perhaps the numbers there were better than if it had been dropped on any other viable target (especially a European one): that math, at least, I can believe.
That's not what a whataboutism is, at least in common parlance. What the OP of this particular thread was saying, though, was. The idea is that people should aim to be better than lower common denominators.
Your version of "what about" as being about inclusion is strangely almost the exact opposite.
I think the problem is more that given the short attention span of the general public (myself included), these "definitions" (I don't believe that slavery can be "defined" as good, but okay) are what's going to stick in the shifting sea of discourse, and are going to be picked out of that sea by people with vile intentions and want to justify them.
It's also an issue that LLMs are a lot more convincing than they should be, and the same people with short attention spans who don't have time to understand how they work are going to believe that an Artificial Intelligence with access to all the internet's information has concluded that slavery had benefits.