lmmarsano @ lmmarsano @lemmynsfw.com

Posts

0

Comments

420

Joined

7 mo. ago

There are speech police in the real world. Workplaces don’t allow you to use slurs or to harass your co-workers.

That "speech police" traces to the government in the form of labor laws & regulations in the remit of the EEOC, eg, Title 7 of Civil Rights Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act. Employers didn't conceive of such workplaces policies on their own to invite lawsuits & put targets on their backs.

These laws do not apply to social media as a communication platform. Offensive expression doesn't deny equal access/opportunities to platform resources they are under any legal obligation to provide. Should we put much confidence in social media companies voluntarily assuming unnecessary obligations just because?

It never made sense.

Do we really like people, though?

That's hilarious. 👍

Nah, and cool opinion.

As someone else wrote, why should anyone put much confidence in "some giant/evil megacorp"? They're not a philanthropic organization & they're not real authorities. We can expect them to act in their own interest.

If content is truly illegal or harmful, then the real authorities should handle it. Simply taking down that content doesn't help real authorities or address credible threats. If it's not illegal or harmful, then we can block or ignore.

People already curate their information offline. It seems reasonable to expect the same online.

If your whole schtick is about decluttering, you should be able to differentiate between “less” and “fewer.” Getting things down to a countable number achieves “fewer”-ness.

Bullshit dogmatic rule by pedants who make up rules & pass them down like schmucks instead of observing & studying the actual, standard language. True: fewer is only for countables. However, less is fine. It has been used with countables for about as long as written English has existed as documented by linguists & English usage references: ::: spoiler quoted passage

The primary point is that the now-standard pedantry about less/fewer is in fact one of the many false "rules" that have recently precipitated out of the over-saturated solution of linguistic ignorance where most usage advice is brewed.

But not the usage advice at MWCDEU. This is the start of its entry on less/fewer:

Here is the rule as it is usually encountered: fewer refers to number among things that are counted, and less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured. This rule is simple enough and easy enough to follow. It has only one fault—it is not accurate for all usage. If we were to write the rule from the observation of actual usage, it would be the same for fewer: fewer does refer to number among things that are counted. However, it would be different for less: less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted. Our amended rule describes the actual usage of the past thousand years or so.

As far as we have been able to discover, the received rule originated in 1770 as a comment on less:

This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better. No Fewer than a Hundred appears to me not only more elegant than No less than a Hundred, but strictly proper. —Baker 1770

Baker's remarks about fewer express clearly and modestly—"I should think," "appears to me"—his own taste and preference. [...]

How Baker's opinion came to be an inviolable rule, we do not know. But we do know that many people believe it is such. Simon 1980, for instance, calls the "less than 50,000 words" he found in a book about Joseph Conrad a "whopping" error.

The OED shows that less has been used of countables since the time of King Alfred the Great—he used it that way in one of his own translations from Latin—more than a thousand years ago (in about 888). So essentially less has been used of countables in English for just about as long as there has been a written English language. After about 900 years Robert Baker opined that fewer might be more elegant and proper. Almost every usage writer since Baker has followed Baker's lead, and generations of English teachers have swelled the chorus. The result seems to be a fairly large number of people who now believe less used of countables to be wrong, though its standardness is easily demonstrated. :::

Less is more general than fewer, and the references identify common constructions where less is preferred with countables.

Is he plugging or unplugging? Shit's unclear.

Wrong, brah: a violent response doesn't make a violent protest.

What does that have to do with non-violent protesters?

Did the violent attacks by police & police dogs make the Birmingham campaign a violent protest?

use meme unrelatable to someone who hasn't watched infinity war or whatever junk
act surprised your mom is oblivious or has no patience for this shit

Still got no idea what's going on with that "charger": didn't watch the movie, either. 🤷

It's a chick: they just waddle, play with hay, and do flappies while waiting for their parents to occasionally feed them. Albatross chicks are huge.

Okay but who’s the one defining a protest as violent?

From the article

Perhaps most obviously, violent protests necessarily exclude people who abhor and fear bloodshed, whereas peaceful protesters maintain the moral high ground.

Chenoweth points out that nonviolent protests also have fewer physical barriers to participation. You do not need to be fit and healthy to engage in a strike, whereas violent campaigns tend to lean on the support of physically fit young men. And while many forms of nonviolent protests also carry serious risks – just think of China’s response in Tiananmen Square in 1989 – Chenoweth argues that nonviolent campaigns are generally easier to discuss openly, which means that news of their occurrence can reach a wider audience. Violent movements, on the other hand, require a supply of weapons, and tend to rely on more secretive underground operations that might struggle to reach the general population.

Violent protests seems to mean a violent campaign of armed, planned attacks.

I doubt that would include unplanned outbreaks of violence from people not organized for that purpose.

P.C. this is article about the four mentioned protest in the article, and literally the second paragraph is about clashes.

Which states

Clashes break out as police try to disperse the crowds and eight demonstrators are killed.

Police killing protesters makes a violent movement?

They're not exactly an armed group of combatants coordinating attacks.

Working with Maria Stephan, a researcher at the ICNC, Chenoweth performed an extensive review of the literature on civil resistance and social movements from 1900 to 2006 – a data set then corroborated with other experts in the field.

Research.

How to blow up a pipeline has a chapter on the topic.

Research?

But you knew that with your high standards of verifying information right?

Do your standards measure up to that?

Watch conservationists weigh & feed an underweight chick (not yet fledged, not too happy).

Starting a covert, underground marketing campaign on Lemmy this early is pretty extreme. I guess we can't underestimate fandom: the promoters here don't need payment with this kind of passion.

You aren't good to them for reciprocation, though, right? You're good because it is right & just?

Sometimes being good means treating others justly, which isn't necessarily nice & sweet. Are we confusing good with sweet?

Maybe you're right: is there verification?

Neither content policy (youtube or tiktok) clearly lays out rules on those words. I only find unverified claims: some write it started at YouTube, others claim TikTok. They claim YouTube demonetizes & TikTok shadowbans. They generally agree content restrictions by these platforms led to the propagation of circumspect shit like unalive & SA.

TikTok policy outlines their moderation methods, which include removal and ineligibility to the for you feed. Given their policy on self-harm & automated removal of potential violations, their policy is to effectively & recklessly censor such language.

Generally, censorship is suppression of expression. Censorship doesn't exclusively mean content removal, though they're doing that, too. (Digression: revisionism & whitewashing are forms of censorship.)

Regardless of how they censor or induce self-censorship, they're chilling inoffensive language pointlessly. While as private entities they are free to moderate as they please, it's unnecessary & the effect is an obnoxious affront on self-expression that's contorting language for the sake of avoiding idiotic restrictions.

Does it beat carrying these & wearing them in all orifices at all times?

I love these guys. Just look at them

• shoplift & demolish a bag of chips
• shoplift a sandwich
• hover over a sightseer to snatch a bite of ice cream
• wait from a regular spot to swipe from a pedestrian.

To most of us, few things are more bothersome than the dreaded cookie banners. On countless websites, you’re confronted with a pesky pop-up urging you to agree to something.

Thanks to dumbass EU laws fussing over nonproblems like (check notes) targeted advertising. Really? I voluntarily give out information to an ad-supported service I don't pay for, they turn around & use this to try to show me more relevant ads, and I'm supposed to pretend the internet was ever private & shit my pants over this? While I can understand safeguards from identity theft, cookies aren't that, I don't understand how this concern ever blew up.

Before those laws, those cookie banners didn't exist & I was happy not clicking them. I was under no illusion that online privacy exists with free services running on ad revenue that can track online activity and try to harvest voluntary information that's mostly worthless to me. Free shit in exchange for mostly worthless information & ads I ignore seems like an obvious bargain, but some hypochondriacs had to stir everyone into a frenzy to bitch & moan about it. Do they think the world just runs on magic?