OneMeaningManyNames @ whydudothatdrcrane @lemmy.ml

Full time smug prick

---

Read more

Posts

53

Comments

386

Joined

1 yr. ago

The EFF and Techdirt have already said that it is hate speech and effectively suppresses the free speech of gay and trans. Do you know better than these sources? Where were you when bigots banned books? Did you protest for First Amendment when three racist groups banned books all over the country? Did you protest when these same platforms shadow banned lgbt voices? So you don't care about First Amendment, you are just against LGBT lives in particular.

It is intolerant hate speech targeted at people who are specifically targeted by racist, genderist, ableist, and sexist double standards, going against the very pillars of democracy and modern science, to serve a religious and corporatist agenda. What was your point, mfer?

Meta's anti-LGBT rules are closely knit to their ending the fact-checking: It is science denialism and linked to racism and vaccine skepticism.

Homosexuality and gender identity are not considered mental illnesses, Sex is not a binary, and Race is not connected to intelligence.

Bigots never liked science on these three, and now they use political power to impose their narrative.

Meta never moderated such discourse. Nor reddit nor twitter nor youtube. There was no censorship to end here. What this is, it is a free pass to punch down trans and gay people. It is incitement to violence, and Zuckerberg and Musk must go to the gallows for it.

Don't get me started on the toxic harassment these platforms have allowed against African and Carribean reparation activists, how they have destroyed the lives of feminists, and how they have named all Palestinians terrorists.

At this point race realists and gender essentialists have ensured political and technological control of the narrative.

There is no room for debating sealioning trolls on this one. If they don't understand the social dynamics against gender/sex/minorities at this moment, they are no better than brownshirts.

It is permabans and hooks and jabs all the way, for every single weird freak that backs this deranged hateful shit.

Meta's anti-LGBT rules are closely knit to their ending the fact-checking: It is science denialism and linked to racism and vaccine skepticism.

Homosexuality and gender identity are not considered mental illnesses, Sex is not a binary, and Race is not connected to intelligence.

Bigots never liked science on these three, and now they use political power to impose their narrative.

Meta never moderated such discourse. Nor reddit nor twitter nor youtube. There was no censorship to end here. What this is, it is a free pass to punch down trans and gay people. It is incitement to violence, and Zuckerberg and Musk must go to the gallows for it.

Don't get me started on the toxic harassment these platforms have allowed against African and Carribean reparation activists, how they have destroyed the lives of feminists, and how they have named all Palestinians terrorists.

At this point race realists and gender essentialists have ensured political and technological control of the narrative.

There is no room for debating sealioning trolls on this one. If they don't understand the social dynamics against gender/sex/minorities at this moment, they are no better than brownshirts.

It is permabans and hooks and jabs all the way, for every single weird freak that backs this deranged hateful shit.

Meta's anti-LGBT rules are closely knit to their ending the fact-checking: It is science denialism and linked to racism and vaccine skepticism.

Homosexuality and gender identity are not considered mental illnesses, Sex is not a binary, and Race is not connected to intelligence.

Bigots never liked science on these three, and now they use political power to impose their narrative.

Meta never moderated such discourse. Nor reddit nor twitter nor youtube. There was no censorship to end here. What this is, it is a free pass to punch down trans and gay people. It is incitement to violence, and Zuckerberg and Musk must go to the gallows for it.

Don't get me started on the toxic harassment these platforms have allowed against African and Carribean reparation activists, how they have destroyed the lives of feminists, and how they have named all Palestinians terrorists.

At this point race realists and gender essentialists have ensured political and technological control of the narrative.

There is no room for debating sealioning trolls on this one. If they don't understand the social dynamics against gender/sex/minorities at this moment, they are no better than brownshirts.

It is permabans and hooks and jabs all the way, for every single weird freak that backs this deranged hateful shit.

I have read most of this thread, and it is very interesting question indeed.

My response:

Taken as a hobby in con-langs it has an impressive community (I don't speak it though). This is to be compared to other con-langs, not other natural languages. Just the number of learners or historical connotation do not make it necessary preferrable to other con-langs in this day and era.

I believe its practical purpose as international lingua franca is defeated by its Eurocentrism and the actual spread and expansion of its users. It is not a matter of merely the number of users but where and how you actually often they meet them.

For this reason I think it is better to follow the advice I read elsewhere (I think on Lemmy), like French and Spanish can open up many more communication opportunity in ex-colonies, and we should really pay more attention to languages or families that have been local lingua franca in localities of Asia and Africa, to have a more global perspective.

but not for everybody

I second that. English is all but useless in some places in Europe and Asia.

Well there is a standardized system of foreign language skills, which is called A1, A2, A3,..., all the way up to C2. I think that it is only a matter of gathering statistical data to know what percentage of speakers are conversational. It is not an "unknowable unknown".

isolates like Basque that might have been invented

I don't think this is a valid linguistic take. There were tons of languages in Europe and Central Asia that are unknown to us. Then the Indo-Europeans expanded and mostly replaced the native linguistic groups. But I think linguists think the critical factor is geographic isolation, for instance Basques and Romanians are geographically isolated, or perhaps I should say geophysically.

distorted beyond recognition by the people who misuse them

This is not the only driving force of language evolution, although is true for imperialist languages like French, Spanish, and English. Languages evolve by generational shifts among native speakers too, eg this has happened with High German, I think.

For me, Lemmy was a place where I mostly found like-minded people. Even if we don't always agree (and we shouldn't) I have had some genuine feedback to the thoughts that haunt me or tickle me. Nevertheless, I was surprised at the interinstance drama which I mostly ignore. And I think that the base probability of transphobia is higher than the sidebar rules would implicate. I am always surprised when I see naive and uninformed takes.

Although I do have found a place to share such thoughts with less harassment and backlash than Reddit, there is some unearned harassment and hating here as well, eg there are some consistent downvoters, to the effect I have a single downvote to anything I post.

Although I think that here in Lemmy I enjoy a higher probability of getting thoughtful responses and well-intended humor to what I post, I feel that a number of people I have interacted with me were highly prejudiced I was a troll or a bad faith actor.

This lack of trust to other users is one of the greatest achievements of fascists and spooks, and they have successfully used it with freedom movements everywhere.

I was also surprised at how conservative the privacy community is. Compared to the amount of radical content posted on every other topic, I find myself among those who think that c/Privacy actively discourages newcomers from developing advanced privacy and anonymity skills.

The privacy thing and some aspects of the Democrats situation pre- and post- election make me think that there is some "manufacturing of consensus" bad faith actors among us. This can lead to disbanding of any project, so we need a solid mindset, in which we assume good faith, but have exact methods for handling disagreement and genuine questions, but also look out for bad faith actors and take steps to build healthy online communities for anarchist and communist free and private software enthusiasts.

Afterthoughts

• The sitewide rules ask us to assume good faith, be civil, and discuss thoughtfully. As it happens, we fail to adhere, and I am to blame as well. I am quite uncivil to people I disagree, but it is often forgiven because a lot of other people are cheering. This makes us a stupid crowd by the way.
• As a Disclaimer, I switched sides wrt to Democrats. Although I had chosen not to post anything pre-election, I was like "Quit this nonsense and vote Democrats already". I was radicalized after the election, and now think that Democrats are lobbying grifters and can stuff it.

I don't think there is such a thing as "transgenderism", as it is not an ideology. It is a human trait, such as this person is transgender, or that one is cisgender.

There is another issue I take with this approach. You seem to think that transgender people (in the positional sense you employ above) acquire the societal customs surrounding the sexes (like skirts and make-up or ways of talking and walking) and equate it with "being that sex".

This is not accurate though. There have been studies who show that trans people are no more stereotypical feminine or masculine than their cisgender peers. Cis people are all over the place with respect to gendered societal norms, and the same is true for trans people. (And of course non-binary trans people challenge the norms even further.)

To better understand what gender identity is, consider the horrific assignment of gender performed on intersex people. When infants have ambiguous sex organs, a doctor decides, often on his own visual inspection about the future ability of the organ to penetrate, whether to mold it into a penis or a vagina, and not even tells the parents, so they think they've got a cis boy or girl the whole time. Over the years it has turned out that these people feel uneasy and when seek answers they discover they should have been another gender all along. So it is something in their brain that tells them "I am not the correct gender". The same thing happens to transgender people. This is what it makes a protected trait.

Also, the provided definition of "acquiring the societal custom of the opposite sex thus becoming the other sex" does not account for dysphoria, a feeling of unease to the primary reproductive organs or secondary sex features (like body hair, breasts, muscular structure and the like). And it is very shallow from a sociological perspective as to how deeply ingrained are these customs to the identities of cis and trans people alike.

The starting point here is usually to notice how asking about a baby's gender is the first question asked, and everything is shaped from there (baby room coloring and selection of toys, the content of compliments, and conditioning their plans for the future).

People never complain about cis women "always" being such stereotypical dolls and cis men being such insufferable chuds. They only complain for specific trans people that are performing at the extremes, and the only reason is that people don't see trans people's gender are equally genuine.

That's because the US rebuilt Germany, as a barrier to the USSR.

if just a handful of idealists

If they are so few why does their vote matter that much? Futile attempt to undermine those who disagree with oneself on the basis of statistical sums.

suck it up

This arguments goes both ways. You say I suck it up, I say you suck it up, I don't put my friends' life/well-being on the line, for the sake of some half-baked moderation bias one considers self-evident truth.

the third-party purist who made their heart sing.

This is not what happened. All analyses point to that Harris failed to mobilize progressive voters. But this is not a discussion we are having right now, I have made my point very clear in this post including the contributions of others underneath.

So this is a dishonest ad hominem argument, that contradicts itself. I expect it to be thought of as refuted, and one should not resurrect it as per the anti-sealioning policy.

I am a pragmatist, you are an idealist.

1. This is not what these words mean.
2. You don't get to define what other people determine themselves as.
3. I am ideologue with certain material interests, and you are an ideologue with a different set of interest, who is willing to solve equations with human lives.
4. A centrist although presenting as non-ideologue, is willing to protect his moderation bias even with the lives of other people he thinks as ideological purism.
5. By continuously compromising with the worst amongst the humanity for precious election points he makes society worse for all of us.
6. The real meaning of centrism is that you are flexible with your red lines against fascism and corporatism, and weigh human lives according to their ideological distance from oneself.

history shows that “radical solutions” are almost always a mirage

We have LibreWolf, Mullvad, TorBrowser, which are all Firefox forks of course. If we are talking about possible extinction of the gecko engine perhaps we could have this discussion anew, but because these other projects exist, not because we have to support any ill advised move Firefox makes that time and again alienates this community.

To further this argument, there is, well, open source in general, which many people frame by the same "moderate-biased" arguments you propose. Nonetheless it exists and thrives, and it is well shown that the GPL licenses are better for developers. All this happens because of what you dismiss as "idealists", from the era of Creative Commons, Independent Media Center, and the Internet Archive, to the Tor Project, Tails, SciHub and all other good things the internet has to offer comes from ideologues. Even Lemmy that you are currently using.

So whatever is outside the centrist's tunnel vision is just non-existent. That makes the centrist an extremist naive empiricist, lacking non only object constancy but also the intellectual sophistication to stipulate configurations of the world outside his immediate and temporary surroundings.

The blithe centrist happily leeches off to preach ad nauseam that middle ground with spooks, fascists and advertisers is a universal truth we must blindly succumb to. Then it is shown that the centrist is not just naive or misguided but actively hostile and dishonest (see first section of this comment for evidence of your logical inconsistency and dishonesty) with people of different opinions, so they prove themselves not to be centrist at all, but diet fascists.

To sum up, in this post I have shown that:

• Centrists can be tactically motivated and intellectually dishonest.
• Centrist are in fact intolerant of views different than theirs.
• Centrists are immoral and undemocratic, in their pursuit of middle ground with perpetrators of exploitation and discrimination.
• Centrists are in fact extremist in their naive empiricism, tunnel vision, and glorification of the status quo that was given to them, which is by definition conservative.

Combining common terms from the above propositions: Centrists are tactically motivated, intellectually dishonest, intolerant to difference of opinion, indifferent to the rights of others, immoral and undemocratic apologists of exploitation and discrimination, extremist in their empiricism and conservativism.

Centrist? Better call them sentries of the status quo. Disclaimer: I hate centrists with a burning passion.

Someone should tell Mozilla about the AI-sized environmental concern in their browser?

It's called offset /s

With no intention of stirring the pot, this sounds just like the pre-election arguments in favor of Democrats.

The last voice that cares even slightly about our privacy will be gone.

The emphasis here should be on "even slightly" rather than the dramatic effect of "the last voice".

I mean, if this slice approaches zero, then why it is better to stay with Firefox rather than moving on to more radical solutions?

The lottery. Falconry. Schools.

No one is attempting to prove bleeding P->Q here.

If P -> Q and P, then Q

Sure, and when ~P^Q, then P->Q is still not false, and you can further use it in a proof, in the context of other given statements.

This was never presented as a method to show that P->Q, which arguably can only be shown with data.

With all due respect, get your head out of your arse and read this from what I posted:

While modus ponens is one of the most commonly used argument forms in logic it must not be mistaken for a logical law; rather, it is one of the accepted mechanisms for the construction of deductive proofs that includes the "rule of definition" and the "rule of substitution".

Emphasis is mine. I cannot scream hard enough to get this simple message across to your flipping head. You are reading it wrong, and if you had done one class of prepositional calculus you would have known, therefore you haven't.

As for your foundationalist pursuits, most of science advances without getting back to the foundations, just as calculus was in practical use long before it was formally proven. So you see a person (OP) struggling with basic conception and composition of his argument, let alone the formal expression, and you raise the bar to the level of logical foundations of mathematics? If not dishonest, this is utterly unproductive.

Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia