Ye song glorifying Hitler gets millions of views on X while other platforms struggle to remove it
lmmarsano @ lmmarsano @lemmynsfw.com Posts 0Comments 422Joined 7 mo. ago
lmmarsano @ lmmarsano @lemmynsfw.com
Posts
0
Comments
422
Joined
7 mo. ago
I mean my generation as kids, we had stupid hair too, but this is just inexplicable.
Really? Don't remember the 80s?
Other 80s musicians
Edit: How could I forget Tears for Fears?
Do explain. It seems to me they’re winning.
The way we have before? Maybe crack open a history book & read about the civil rights movement? Or read about the Enlightenment era development of liberal political philosophy leading to Western governments founded on individual rights, rule of law, liberal democracy, secularism defeating authoritarian & traditional governments in opposition to all of it.
Whats your view on Germany then?
Misguided, wrong, and slipping into trouble.
[…] In 2021 politicians tightened the rules further, worried by the spread of abuse and disinformation on social media. Courts may now punish insults against politicians especially severely, if their work is “significantly impeded”. In Mr Bendels’s case the court ruled, dubiously, that an impartial observer would not be able to tell that the image of Ms Faeser had been altered. That ensured her right to protection from defamation was given priority over his to freedom of expression.
Prosecutors are happy to argue that defamation may impede politicians from exercising their duties. A Bavarian court has ruled that insults “beyond the absolute minimum of respect” can be punished. And more may be to come. The governing agreement between Germany’s incoming coalition partners pledges to empower a regulator to crack down on the “deliberate dissemination of false factual claims”.
Last year police searched the flat of a pensioner who had shared an image on X calling Robert Habeck, Germany’s vice-chancellor, an “idiot”. Mr Habeck had filed a criminal complaint about the image, although the prosecutor was acting on a separate notification.
[…] Germany is not an outlier in freedom-of-expression rankings. But it is not just foreigners who are worried. In 2024 just 40% of Germans told Allensbach, a pollster, that they felt able to express themselves freely. The figure has halved since 1990 (see chart).
In Germany, as in America and elsewhere, free-speech crusades are often regarded as the preserve of the dissident right. Mr Bendels is close to the hard-right Alternative for Germany party, which often complains that its views are unfairly suppressed. Yet left-wing activists, especially pro-Palestinians, have also fallen prey to police and prosecutors. Police in Berlin have shut down conferences and demonstrations in attempts to see off hate speech. Academics who supported pro-Palestine students have been threatened with a loss of funding. The risks to free expression do not go only in one direction.
While the US has many flaws, its free expression policy isn't one of them. Its policy is more coherent & faithful to those liberal philosophic foundations that limit expression more closely to the harm principle (eg, threats, imminent lawless action, defamation). It was crucial to the advances of the civil rights movement.
Giving an authority power to decide which harmless expression we're allowed to observe or produce is what authoritarians do. And no, offending someone isn't harm.
My advice is to quit lazily threatening everyone by arguing civil rights are the problem, and to use those civil rights (& civil disobedience) to organize & get shit done like the activists of before.
Wtf isn’t any confederate symbolism illegal and punishable by prison time? I’d support this.
Basic rule on policymaking: don't give yourself powers you wouldn’t want your opponents to have.
Quoting A Man of All Seasons
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake!
Sacrificing basic civil liberties when they don't suit you is a threat to everyone. Their willingness to do that is why everyone hates authoritarians. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
There are better ways to beat these shitheads.
Even if it successfully shielded them from 100% of civil rights cases (which it objectively has not)
Objectively, the planets sometimes align, too: the odds are highly against it.
it provides no protection from criminal charges
Also exceedingly rare: we've only seen any decent prosecution recently. It's likely to fail.
While that fight should continue, society has more mundane tools to ostracize & make people's lives hell.
You're entitled to be wrong & deny reality. Everyone is entitled dismiss your position.
I’m exceptionally doubtful that clearly established constitutional rights aren’t being violated
Anyone who's hasn't lived under a rock the past decade knows clearly established means practical impunity.
Some courts have required an extraordinarily precise match between the misconduct alleged in one case and in a prior one in order to find a violation of someone’s constitutional rights.
[…]
When Baxter sued, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out his case. It held that while it was well established that a police dog couldn’t be unleashed on a suspect who was lying down, there was no case addressing someone sitting down with their hands up, as Baxter said he was doing.
From Reason
"I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence," writes Thomas. "Because our §1983 qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text, I would grant this petition."
The judge spoke to a point that qualified immunity critics have been making for some time: The framework was concocted by the Supreme Court in spite of court precedent. It's a perfect example of legislating from the bench—something conservatives typically oppose.
The Civil Rights Act of 1871, otherwise known as Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, explicitly grants you the ability to sue public officials who trample on your constitutional rights. The high court tinkered with that idea in Pierson v. Ray (1967), carving out an exemption for officials who violated your rights in "good faith." Thus, qualified immunity was born.
That doctrine ballooned to something much larger in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), when the Supreme Court scrubbed the "good faith" exception in favor of the "clearly established" standard, a rule that has become almost impossible to satisfy. Now, public officials cannot be held liable for bad behavior if a near-identical situation has not been outlined and condemned in previous case law.
Though the original idea was to protect public servants from vacuous lawsuits, the practical effects have been alarming. As I wrote last week:
In Howse v. Hodous (2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit gave qualified immunity to two officers who allegedly assaulted and arrested a man on bogus charges for the crime of standing outside of his own house. There was also the sheriff's deputy in Coffee County, Georgia, who shot a 10-year-old boy while aiming at a non-threatening dog; the cop in Los Angeles who shot a 15-year-old boy on his way to school because the child's friend had a plastic gun; and two cops in Fresno, California, who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant.
In other words, cops need the judiciary to tell them explicitly that stealing is wrong. The aforementioned police officers were thus shielded from legal accountability, leaving the plaintiffs with no recourse to seek damages for medical bills or stolen assets.
Court standards are so strict, nearly any meaningless, incidental difference suffices to grant officials cover of qualified immunity: literally the difference between lying down & sitting is all it takes to violate rights with impunity.
Reminds me of Mashle.
Your concept is better, though.
No, logic does that: showing everyone else you're wrong is just icing.
You have yet to show that it isn’t derogatory, so far you just have your own oppinion.
Examples have been given, so it's not opinion: it's plain observation which you're denying.
Where's your evidence? You've only given an overgeneralization
that is derogatory
and questionable speculation (not observational evidence) that doesn't support it.
It is often used to dehumanize women, as the term is mostly used when talking about animals.
Even if a term often dehumanizes, does it follow that the term itself is derogatory (especially if common uses often don't dehumanize)?
The speculation poses generalizations on observable phenomena.
- If a term is mostly used to talk about animals, then it's dehumanizing.
- Noun female is mostly used to talk about animals.
Some problems with that: where's your observational, generalizable support for any of it? (Empirical generalizations need that type of support.) Is 2 even true & how would you show that?
Does your overgeneralization withstand observation? No: if it did, then the example given & other refuting instances wouldn't be easy to find.
What is an empirical claim that fails to account for observable reality? Worthless.
Outright denying observations that conflict with your claim/pretending they don't exist is part confirmation bias & part selective evidence fallacy. Try respecting logic & choosing tenable claims that can withstand basic observation.
FYI Linguistics and much of science rely on methods other than statistics. Classical & relativistic physics were developed without it. Planetary observations rejecting geocentrism didn't involve statistics. Much of linguistics is detailed observation & analysis of language samples to identify patterns and rules, so good luck finding statistical studies to support your claims.
Counterexamples don't require studies: learn logic.
Refuting the claim "men are generally bald" merely requires the existence of a few men who aren't. You're claiming "female is a derogatory noun to humans": as shown it isn't. Can you explain what the mother quoted in the news is saying about her daughters if your claim about female is true? No, your claim fails.
Deny plain observation all you want: your claim is false.
Statistics aren't needed to reject an overgeneralization. On the contrary, you would need something like statistical generalization: you're (over)generalizing the meaning of a word. Any counterexamples suffice to defeat a bad generalization, since no sample should contradict a true generalization: look it up or take introductory logic.
You're overgeneralizing, and only asserting your claim doesn't begin to meet the burden to support that. In contrast, I've indicated evidence exists & where it's readily found, which you ignore. Ignoring evidence that doesn't suit you is a fallacy (often committed in bad faith).
The fact remains that counterexamples to your claim are common, which wouldn't be expected if the conventional meaning were derogatory.
Here's an example quoting a story in the news:
“What if I would have been armed,” she said. “You’re breaking in. What am I supposed to think? My initial thought was we were being robbed—that my daughters, being females, were being kidnapped. You have guns pointed in our faces. Can you just reprogram yourself and see us as humans, as women? A little bit of mercy. […]"
So your claim is that by referring to her daughters as females, this mother is insulting them?
While I might be able to argue in "bad faith", the unsolicited speech productions of the community do not. Do you want to ignore more examples?
Confirmed: couldn't even search females in lemmy. Disregards common classified ads. Claims "bad faith" while ignoring evidence in bad faith.
Why would I?
Because the claim is empirical, and yours violates plain observation?
So you didn't look at the
abundant evidence here (search females), in classifieds, personals & online equivalents (eg, ads that limit eligibility to females), or text corpus searches revealing that the noun female referring to humans is often non-derogatory
did you?
Trump voters love to "own the libs".
Is the liberal version of "owning the libs" also "owning the libs"? 🤔
Thomas Jefferson
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
registry and gpedit
They're still around and the various configuration technologies tap into them.
Most of us are pissed that all of those methods half work or are depreciating away for no reason other than some UIx twat couldn’t be bothered to hook something properly so they just reskin an element and misplaced half the functions.
Pretty much the case here, too. It mostly works, and the parts that don't are super annoying & require ad hoc script-fu.
it blows my mind why this has not been resolved
Yep, configuring Microsoft has sucked incredibly hard compared to free OSs.
Managing plain text configuration files in /etc & ~/.config is refreshingly nice compared to the bolt-on weirdness hidden behind various interfaces in Windows.
It's cute getting an error to contact your administrator when you're the administrator.
Attention in that area is extremely late & overdue, so I was happy to see something like configuration.dsc.yaml.
I see AI mostly as an assistant whose work I review. I might give it a fully written text, tell it to clean up my clunky language, then review it. Or I might ask it to provide some answers with references & review those references.
AI won't fix broken foundations.
I’m sure we can ride out 11 on 10 … right?
I try to avoid Windows altogether if I can & confine it to less serious work.
In posts like this and elsewhere, commenters kept claiming the noun female to refer to a human is generally derogatory or offensive.
Someone wrote
Occasionally my partner does or says some things that remind me of the “manosphere” aka 4chan neckbeards.
A perfect example was that he sometimes says “females” when he means “women”. I explain that it’s not a swear word but it’s still derogatory. I explain why. Once I did, he understood and stopped doing it.
Despite abundant evidence here (search females), in classifieds, personals & online equivalents (eg, ads that limit eligibility to females), or text corpus searches revealing that the noun female referring to humans is often non-derogatory, so it all depends on the context, they'd insist that usage of the word itself is offensive, insulting, or disrespectful, and they wanted everyone taught to think that until it's the generally accepted meaning. They didn't seem to consider that promoting unconventionally sexist framings (ie, female is a dirty word) for wider adoption in our language serves sexists more than anything, and it might make more sense to resist that.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
What if we had all these configuration knobs & switches controlled by a plaintext configuration file, and to replicate the configuration, we could just share the file? Maybe we could call it declarative configuration management?
Wouldn't that be cool? We already have it (partially)?
Maybe an AI could guide us in preparing that file?
The same way that the vaccine conspiracists won’t learn until they watch their unvaccinated child shrivel and perish from a horrific and completely preventable disease.
You're wrong: they don't learn either. Humans have an incredible capacity to not learn shit. Let's empathize with them: just kidding!
While I can't read what you're responding to, that doesn't follow (it can be ignored or protested) & no, they haven't.
The paradox of tolerance doesn't lead to a unique conclusion. Philosophers drew all kinds of conclusions. I favor John Rawls':
Accordingly, constraining some liberties such as freedom of speech is unnecessary for self-preservation in extraordinary circumstances as speaking one's mind is not an act that directly & demonstrably harms/threatens security or liberty. However, violence or violations of rights & regulations could justifiably be constrained.
A point of clarification: tolerance has a number of paradoxes identified in the SEP, and the paradox in discussion is more precisely called the paradox of drawing the limits.
Opposing basic civil liberties like freedom of expression is very authoritarian & small-minded. Basic rule on policymaking: don't give yourself powers you wouldn’t want your opponents to have.
Quoting A Man of All Seasons
Sacrificing basic civil liberties when they don't suit you is a threat to everyone. Their willingness to do that is why everyone hates authoritarians. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
There are better ways to beat these shitheads, and it's been done before. Contrary to what you wrote, defending civil liberties regardless of whose is high-minded & defends everyone.