OneMeaningManyNames @ whydudothatdrcrane @lemmy.ml

Full time smug prick

---

Read more

Posts

53

Comments

386

Joined

1 yr. ago

You write a wall if text thinking you will shift the views of disgusted people turning their back to the product, a product at that which was iconic for their open source culture, and yet it somehow managed to alienate the niche that was more favorable to it. Good luck with that!

This is trolling. It is beyond self-evident that the Open Source fediverse has thoroughly criticized the latest Mozilla move. I myself point out device fingerprinting and third party vendors. You respond to neither approach. You want me to do homework and quantify the sentiment on the trending Mozillla hashtag? Sealioning. Diigressing the topic of conversation? Report and block you sad impotent spook troll.

Your mastodon feed might be different that mine, lmao

https://mastodon.social/tags/mozilla

This is some Gestapo/Stasi shit.

Like, all queer persons must go beyond Signal/Tor level.

This extends to the physical world: Plan ahead for escape routes and survival networks.

I will come back with this angle but, REMEMBER those mfers who always said "the NSA does not target you, so asking about anything more than Signal is paranoid/futile if ever the NSA targets you"?

REMEMBER that we said that some people have advanced threat models by default? Eg feminist activists, activists in third countries, queer people?

WHO is paranoid now, that being queer, pro-Palestine, and/or climate activists can have you on the watchlist?

This development only proves my previous points that the hordes of sock-puppets spamming the Privacy forum are fucking spooks. Pooping the conversation about advanced privacy and anonymity should qualify for permabans, IMHO.

They don't even cite the datapoints, my friend. It is a trademark infringement cease-and-desist...

either Signal fans have to donate more or Signal has to start finding other monetization which if we look at other companies means selling private data.

Lo and behold, after RiseUp now Signal is accused of selling data. Well, it is well known (and audited) that Signal keeps so little metadata it is not even useful to the authorities that have subpoeana-ed it.

This is an extra-ordinary claim you have to back with extra-ordinary evidence, in order to save face.

Clean cut kids do not find Lemmy very palatable.

Of course it is. Did you ever believe that it would stop at trans people?

The definition of "First they came for the communists..."

It has been like that when they first agitated in favor of bathroom and sports segregation, but many let it slide because they were all cis-genderist inside.

If only some trans advocates had warned that the anti-trans movement threatens the core of fundamental freedoms... Oh wait they did, but we called them nazis for not catering to our cisgenderism.

So yes, we reach the point where they also come for the gays, and of course they will come for women and black people. They have let on this shit very publicly.

I only sometimes history did not repeat itself sooo sarcastically.

TL;DR We told you so. Now join the resistance.

The alternatives were suggested briefly in the segment, not the site. Oliver pointed to the site those people who can't ditch Meta right now.

it’s going to hurt Meta’s bottom line eventually

Just hurting Meta's bottom is good enough for me

He only now was able to catch up with all the news with Meta moderation from a month ago. He is only a couple weeks back on air.

Remember "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption"? You can't get stuff like this in stores!

sentence I never thought I’d write

🤣 🤣

Remember when Gemini AI spewed out images of Black Nazis and white supremacists were triggered, huh? IT WAS ON TO SOMETHING, WASN'T IT? /s

I think is some in-joke having to do with Facebook moderation. Or his typical goofassery with domain names. Can't help you there.

"Am I out of touch?" The irony was lost on TERFs ever since they were applauded by anti-abortion christian and white nationalists and nazis, and they still went "No, it is the trans that are profoundly misogynist".

We could say that science is under attack (see following sources). In this case, it belongs.

• Exclusive: how NSF is scouring research grants for violations of Trump’s orders
• Ax falls on elite group of Ph.D.s training to lead U.S. public health labs
• CDC ordered to remove research papers that use the terms "LGBT," "pregnant people" and more
• The Attacks on Science
• Those of us who work in gender medicine are not going anywhere
• My daughter is publishing another academic paper and has to run a filter to ensure there are no "controversial" words. It is an applied physics paper dealing with novel quantum matter.

\ Can we agree that:

1. Science is under attack.
2. Weaponized cisgenderism is science denialism at this point.
3. Free speech absolutism is a trope to suppress all freedom except for white supremacist rhetoric.
4. The attacks are not limited to trans but also cis women, including cis women scientists.
5. Trans rights stem from a complex set of fundamental freedoms, and opposing them is profoundly fascist.

\ If anyone does not agree, ex post facto, with the above points is a literal nazi apologist at this point, and can go debate if FElon's salute was nazi or not. I don't have the time of day for this though.

Can we further agree that scientists must be in the social and ideological avant-garde and opposing fascism, like Einstein did?

Then we see at a time that science is under attack, in the context of a petrifying fascist power grab from anti-vax charlatans, and in the name of science innocent people are vilified and persecuted, that the relevance of these developments ought to be front and center to all science-related communities, much like this once were:

• Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement

\ Because this more or less shows the fossil fuel interests that are behind all this.

User name checks out

And there is Shinigami Eyes Firefox extension for this reason exactly.

I will assume you are not talking about me here as you have no idea of my point of view on the matter. I believe you are talking generically…

That's right

Ieven if you are talking generically, i don’t think your assumption here makes sense. many people feel free to discriminate between people on the basis of their biological sex.

I am talking about the notion that all men are potentially sexual predators. I am not discussing the truthfulness of the idea, or whether women are justified to be afraid of men in general (to an extend they are). But regarding this narrower notion, there is plenty of evidence online that men find the fear outrageous (Not all men etc). If they think trans women are () simply men (I disagree) then they are simply not consistent. This naturally leads to the next step, that their interpretation of transness in AMAB people is registered as a sexual perversion (). It isn't. It is a personal identity thing, like being a (cis) woman also isn't inherently a sexual thing. To think the former is transphobia, to think the latter is misogyny. I am not saying, nor I care, about you subscribing to either, personally. We are both discussing the sociological popularity of these notions.

I don’t know where you live, but this is not true in the UK

I am a nomad, but I was talking about the US, where this grim picture is true in some states, especially with black trans women whose murders the police is particularly inadequate to solve.

while I agree with the thrust of what you are saying you have a writing style that puts words and assumptions in my mouth

I was talking generically. That having been said, I wasn't sure about your personal take, since the lack of tone in this written medium can be very misleading.

in a manner that comes across an unnecessarily combative. you also use exaggeration to make your point which is itself problematic…

I really tried to put arguments forth, and conscientiously not target you, while not giving you a free pass. I don't think I exaggerate, I just present in distilled form the things that people might mean but not necessarily say out loud.

As for being combative, I just try to be thorough and concise. When I said this is textbook transphobia I weren't attacking you. This is factual. If someone looks up a textbook on transphobia they will find the points I have asterisk-ed above. It would perhaps come down as less combative if I said "this is the dictionary definition of transphobia"? I don't know. Transphobia is an ugly thing and much like racism, there is no pleasant way to say it, but this is what the word means.