Windex007 @ Windex007 @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

1,109

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm not from the US

The world is burning. Now. With the justice systems you're alluding to.

"If you act like Assad you'll end up like Assad", they said to the guys who ended Assad for being Assad.

What dinosaur

That agrees with my preconceived biases, for sure.

Beyond that, I think it's possible that the "sting" of negative reactions, or the perceived lack of positive reactions my possibly shape how people think.

And, you can buy that kind of engagement in bulk if you have money. You can train people to engage in different thought patterns buy buying upvotes (buying them dopamine), that would be my hypothesis.

If that's true, I think the inherent danger from a sociological standpoint could not possibly be understated.

Causal relationship between social media and degradation of basic critical thinking skills. Not just tiktok, anything in which people are primarily communicating asynchronously and has a "reward" (likes, upvotes, etc)

So Reddit/Lemmy for sure included

If this is your first Kelly comic, I can get how one would read too hard into "honest citizens". It's really a catch-all for who the faux-artist considers to be the protagonist. For whom the statue of Liberty will ALWAYS be crying either in joy or sorry.

The choice is between a grand vision of the USA and its role in the world, and a superficial short-term promise that will have no significance in a historical context.

You're going to have to explain to me how it's justifying racism to say that someone being a bad worker and the colour of one's skin are completely unrelated to one another.

The solution I was referring to was disrupting malformed logic in thought patterns (racism).

Reconsider my original premise:

"Hey we've got the laziest middle Easterners working for us, they're all so shitty"

If you respond with "The real question is why does the company hire shitty people?"

You're not refuting the malformed logic. You're not disrupting the thought pattern. You're introducing new variables and shifting blame.

Carry that logic forward from the point of view of the person asking the question, they'll say "wow, you're right: we should stop hiring people from the middle east"

Which, I would assume isn't the direction you intended to steer someone's thinking.

Again, it isn't complicated and it's stilly to make it complicated. This person observes two things and then connects the two as being related (quality of worker vs skin colour). They just aren't related. That's it. If they're a bad worker they're a bad worker, why ask someone to reject what they're seeing with their own eyes? It just isn't BECAUSE of skin colour.

It quite literally is the malformed logic being: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Nowhere else in logic do people refute that fallacy by trying to introduce new mitigating arguments. It's fundamentally flawed from the outset and can be directly refuted.

Racism doesn't reduce complexity, it introduces complexity.

If you take two independent things, and then invent a rule to connect them. It's strictly additional complexity

And then for some reason people try and combat it by layering on ADDITIONAL complexity. "Have you considered there might be circumstances you are unaware of?" Like, now we've gone from two unrelated things that we've invented a relationship for to that plus some unobserved moral "dark matter" which we can't see but postulate could exist.

The simplest solution is the best.

"Hey we've got the laziest middle Easterners working for us, they're all so shitty"

"Yeah sounds like they're shitting the bed at work. Don't think it has anything to do with where they're from, though"

To be honest, I actually don't really appreciate human moderation, so that's probably biasing my position.

I can block communities. I can block users. I can set word filters.

If I block someone, I never have to hear from them again. If a moderator does, they'll be back with a new account, and then I DO have to hear from them.

I'd far prefer a "federated" and crowdsourced mechanism to layer onto an extremely lightly moderated foundational layer.

If someone, or someones, want to curate a filter list that aligns with my sensibilities, awesome, I'll opt in. I'll contribute. If I bump into unresolvable issues with other filter curators I'll fork the filter.

I don't need or want a tiny subset of users working full time for free getting burnt out or going on power trip crusades.

The quote I was referencing is this:

“People - Please don't make the life of your mods a living hell. Anything that is celebrating violence is going to get taken down - if not from us, then from reddit. I think all the mods understand that there is a high level of frustration and antipathy towards insurance and insurance execs, but we also understand that murdering people in the streets is not good. We are a public group of medical professionals, we still need to act like that.”

The line about making their lives a living hell?

If you ever feel the need to type that in reference to your volunteer Reddit moderation... Stand up, go outside.

Why the fuck would the moderators care about how much work it is to remove the posts.

As someone with a kid... I agree 100% w/ this. It's like when old people say "youth is wasted on the young"

Don't you dare waste your freedom! Don't answer your (relative) lack of responsibility with arbitrary and self imposed limits. Call in sick and fuck off to the mountains on a Wednesday and spark a J. Just because I can't doesn't mean I don't desperately want that for you.

I'm entirely empathetic to your position.

Internet conversation is intrinsically imperfect. The contract of semantics isn't sufficient.

I think in so many senses of the word, you're right. Technically right. But not practically responding to the practical intention of the communication.

No.

But if you preface them with qualifiers that means something, no? Are those words meaningless embellishment or are they intended to provide additional meaning, and if so, what?

I don't think most people have strictly concluded anything, they've just acknowledged the a significant probability.

You're on a semantic crusade.

Established facts do come with proof. That's how they are established to be fact. You'll notice a suspicious avoidance of the word "fact" in the definition you posted.

He MAYBE fucked around on his one wife causing embarrassment.

He CERTAINLY fucked around with THOUSANDS of people causing DEATH.

It's worthwhile to consider alternatives but it's unwise to paint all scenarios as equally likely.

It's only silly if one misunderstands an assumption to be established fact.

If I hear hoofbeats, I will assume horses, not zebras.

If I see Zebras, I'll say my assumption was wrong. No shame in it. I'm wrong all the fucking time, being right isn't part of my identity.

But until then, if someone says "what do figure those hoofbeats are?" I'm not going to say "50/50 horses or zebras"