librechad @ librechad @lemm.ee

Посты

6

Комментарии

133

Joined

2 yr. ago

I never felt the same buzz after my first cigarette, it felt like I was fucking drunk after my first smoke lol.

After that I was basically just chasing the dragon, I was smoking about 15-30 cigarettes a day for about 1-2 years. Never again.

Good to see ya!

I agree with the fact that it is more personalized and a lot easier to find good music to listen to. I just would hate to pay money like that because I usually stop using the service after awhile and forget to cancel the subscription lol

Why pay for Spotify or YouTube music if you can just use alternatives like ViMusic?

Fuck them kids

I'm donating $5, not much but I love to see companies like Unity burn.

One of the hillbillies I know have a fully automatic M14 with a 20 round magazine from the Korean War. It was a pleasure to fire that thing.

Your detailed response outlines a nuanced stance on the issue, framing it within a long historical context. However, I believe that framing the issue as 'already resolved' dismisses the evolving complexities of online moderation, and how it intersects with the fluid nature of speech and social norms.

1. Historical Precedence: While it's true that bigotry has existed throughout human history, how we engage with it has evolved, especially in the digital era. To suggest that the 'tools and principles are well-established' may not fully capture the complexity of online spaces where interaction occurs asynchronously, across cultures, and without the benefit of vocal tone or facial expression.
2. Freedom of Speech: You critique the notion of debating whether we should 'tolerate the free speech of bigots.' However, even well-intended moderation can have a chilling effect on speech. How do we prevent the slippery slope where the bounds of acceptable speech continually narrow?
3. Intent vs Impact: You suggest judging people solely by their actions, but this discounts the complex interplay between intent and interpretation. Who gets to define what constitutes bigotry in a statement open to multiple interpretations?
4. Potential for Misjudgment: You accept that innocent people could be wrongly accused but say that this doesn't invalidate the act of moderation. While true, this doesn't address the ethical dilemma of sacrificing individual fairness for collective security.
5. The Role of Debate: The dismissal of debate as a tool available only to bigots undermines the basis of democratic society. Even well-established principles benefit from regular scrutiny. Shouldn't we always strive to challenge our existing models to account for new variables?
6. Moral High Ground: Your argument assumes a moral high ground, positioning any differing opinion as inherently stemming from hatred or ignorance. This approach precludes constructive discussion and leaves no room for the reevaluation of norms and rules.

In sum, I respect your position but believe that it does not leave room for the complexities and nuances of this discussion. Insinuating that only 'bigots' would want to engage in a debate about freedom of speech and platform moderation is reductive and does not further a meaningful conversation about how we navigate these tricky waters.

I just got charged $165 a couple days ago from two yearly subscriptions I totally forgot I had. We need a better solution. The banks should just implement the usage of Virtual Cards like Privacy.com does. It'd be so much more convent for people to cancel subscriptions, if they're allowed to have multiple different virtual cards that they can easily toggle on or off.

Why don't the banks do this?

It was a little difficult but honestly I just used ChatGPT the entire time

Currently browsing from my Libreboot X60T with Debian GNU/Linux-libre and OpenRC

Don't they store your data?

Maybe this is just me but I used to LOVE fast food, my fat ass would DoorDash Dairy Queen almost everyday during the pandemic. Ended up gaining 50lbs after I had just reached my goal for losing 100lbs-120lbs. I'm 210 now but I miss being around 170. (used to be 300 a couple years ago)

I can say now that I don't eat fast food or Doordash anymore mostly because I feel like I'm eating micro plastic fake meat (may not be entirely true but maybe you know what I mean)

Uncle fucker, you got me.

Very constructive response.

Your accusation of a 'thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance' ignores my stated objective: to foster a conversation about how platforms decide what content to remove. I've already acknowledged the mod's removal was warranted due to its author's bigoted comments. My interest lies in examining the broader principles behind such decisions.

However, as Mark Twain once said, 'Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.' It seems we're unlikely to engage in the meaningful dialogue I was hoping for, so perhaps it's best to leave it at that.

While I've already acknowledged that the mod in question was rightly removed due to bigoted comments in its description, that's not the focal point of my inquiry. What I'm driving at is the more general issue of content moderation and what warrants removal. I'm not asking for any form of bigotry to be permitted; I'm questioning how we, as a community, decide what crosses the line. It's curious that you label my pursuit of a nuanced dialogue as 'gross,' especially given the content you freely share. It seems our standards for what is acceptable differ considerably.

You do you G, ain't gonna force my views down your throat.

While I acknowledge that the discussion started with the example of a specific mod, the intent was to use that as a jumping-off point for broader questions about moderation. However, I concede that the charged nature of that particular mod has perhaps overshadowed the broader discussion I was aiming for. I did review Nexus Mods guidelines, and the mod in question was rightly removed based on them. The idea was to prompt thought about how these policies are crafted and applied across a range of content. The mention of 'streamlining' was intended to explore the various motivations behind mod creation, not to justify this specific mod's existence. I assure you, this is not an attempt at trolling but rather an effort to foster a meaningful conversation about platform governance.

While I appreciate your perspective, it seems there's a misunderstanding. I'm not advocating for bigotry or hiding behind 'polite discussion' as a shield for harmful views. My interest is in the broader context of what content is so problematic that it requires removal and under what guidelines. Free speech indeed comes with consequences, which is why it's important to examine those guidelines and their consistent application. This is not about condoning transphobia or any form of bigotry; it's about discussing the thresholds and criteria that platforms like Nexus Mods use to make their moderation decisions. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for any community that wishes to maintain both openness and respect.