You tear yourself apart!

Not with that attitude

That’s my point though. If you don’t ban (aka censor) illegal things as a foundation, you end up living in a hellscape. I’m saying your argument isn’t thorough enough. It’s not going far enough. It’s scratching the surface and saying “good enough” when it doesn’t actually appear to be.

I am talking about illegal things because it’s an obvious hole in your argument. What are you talking about about? Because it sounds like you’re being short sighted to me, sticking to a happy path, but I could be wrong. What do you think?

You can’t seriously be against all censorship in books, right? Where are your actual boundaries? I don’t think you’d be ok with something obviously evil like a book of cp… Right?

Edgecases are why it’s hard to be consistent.

Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should!

If it looks like a penis, feels like a penis, and quacks like a penis, it’s probably a penis

That’s bigots for you. They’ll cut off and throw community members into the sacrificial fire for the sake of their panicked feelings, because treating people decently is just not one of their baseline values.

No. The instance being killed by the taliban is the opposite of that is happening here.

The taliban has done nothing, in this case. The admins of the instance have chosen not to keep the instance due to not wanting to fund the taliban in anyway.

This phrasing fucks up which way the action flows, which is important for a headline to get right to remain accurate to the story. Does that make sense?

I can’t help but project an old version of myself on you. I can’t imagine defending 4chan unless I was actively using it a lot… It did used to be basically my only internet community, so I understand being particularly fond of the cesspool.

However, I don’t actually understand your reactions here. Why are you defending it when it seems like 4chan itself wouldn’t even go this far except maaaybe as a limp wristed attempt at an excuse when something truly horrific happens because of them? I genuinely don’t think I understand

Like, to currently vilify it is easy, just take a screenshot of pol. I remember looking pre2016 and seeing HYPERPARTISANSHIP all caps everywhere. It’s an anonymous forum with people discussing plans to make life shittier for various groups, essentially at all times… And before pol it was b (my era was back when pol was a boring place, I don’t know the current state of any board, but I know some of the history and what motivates some normies of my niche who fuck with it)

I just don’t understand the downplaying of it, normal people participate in shit ways on 4chan specifically because of the anonymity. The anonymity is why it’s such a cesspool in the first place. It’s toxic keyboard warrior syndrome to the extreme.

This ignores that 4chan is widely known as the cesspool of the internet and attracts those types. It’s like going on Hexbear and being surprised at the communists. People gather where their banners are. Shit attracts shit. This reduction is apt.

Sure it kind of does some good ish things sometimes, but more often than not, it’s just an internet mob internet mobbing. That’s essentially all it is: chaos waves constantly crashing back in on itself. Any good that comes from it is incidental at best.

Also, defending 4chan on the wider Internet is a little odd, 4chan itself revels in its shit reputation…

Ok, this may be wrong history but I could have sworn I saw some article a few years ago explaining that this marriage happened because it was the middle of the great depression and her parents couldn’t afford to feed her or something like that.

Makes it worse, imo.

That said, was he a pedo? If sex happened then obviously yes, but I thought this marriage was a charity case more so than a “indulge a pedo who’s interested in our daughter during the depression” situation…

I’m gonna have to go find that article at some point…

Edit: welp, I went looking for it, couldn’t find it, so everything above this line may be bullshit, but based on the age she had her first child at, yeah I’d say that obviously counts as some pedo shit

Honestly, the only thing that registered for me was that Caleb didn’t object to race being in the story until the second guy was brought up.

I don’t think Freckles, the other character, was declaring a type preference though, I think they were just communicating the race of both guys as set dressing for the story (“you know how I like a little x” to me just sounds like a playful double down, but I really dont actually know, you do have a point here, but it seems ambiguous at best to me right now. I would have to ask the writers what they meant for me to be satisfied now haha good call out though!)

The only reason I posted it was because it seemed that Freckles was saying essentially the same thing as the person I was responding to. Race isn’t a bad thing to include, it’s only bad when you’re being an asshole about it, essentially.

That reminds me of this skit: https://youtu.be/GS10Rp8zLE0?si=Yq_zs-GmdJZZxD9v&t=10

I got a reason! It’s because people are afraid meta is doing what Microsoft did to a much earlier project. The crux of that whole story is that Microsoft adopted the new tech, became the biggest player thus dominating the area, then, when they had full control of the tech they ended up shutting it down. Some people are convinced meta is going to do that to the fediverse.

This is vague and handwavy, I’m hoping someone actually knows the name of the project. It was early 90s I believe or maybe into the early 00s but it was before my time in the tech sphere of the internet.

…there is a joke here that I could make about incel forums. I’m not going to try to because it’s in poor taste, but my point is that I’m pretty sure that does exist…

Also, what’s your actual position if that’s your devil’s advocate position? I’m a bit unsure if the implication there is intentional or not

Ngl, pretty rude to just go poking around in stranger’s holes like that without warning lmao (/s/jk/etc)

Christ Almighty this is the dystopian software future that my college computer science ethics professor was working so hard to delay.

…if that’s the case, why do professors exist in this day and age with so many books? Why don’t we have a scholar system in reality if books should be enough for people to learn?

Like, if you’ve ever had a good teacher before, they’re not JUST regurgitating info, they’re connecting it to the wider context that currently surrounds you, aka your daily lived life (at least in a lot of cases, I’m sure there are many flavors of what makes a teacher better than an info regurgitator, but this is a solid one that I personally know of)

Teachers, while they may suck or not have the ability to be good for whatever reason, are not supposed to be just information spewing robots.

(before I begin my ramble, I understand this is pedantic as hell and nitpicky af. Please know that I’m not calling this meme bad, I’m only looking for someone who is willing to be pedantic about definitions with me for a few rounds or so.)

What exactly does “false solidarity” mean? What exactly is this particular understanding of solidarity either? To my knowledge (aka, I googled it to ensure my vibe check of what solidarity meant was about right), solidarity is something you feel and are essentially motivated to solidarity actions by. To feel it is to experience it, which means, by my understanding of what solidarity is, the term “false solidarity” seems nonsensical.

Like I know what you’re saying, I agree, the effect is that the worker works against his own interest for the betterment of the upper classes, but this phrasing seems… I don’t know exactly how to put it, but like inexact in a way that can probably be and should probably be fixed.

I would just call it poisonous solidarity (intentionally avoiding virus/illness words though) or something that simultaneously implies that it’s externally put there by an external actor, it’s bad for you, it can hurt things and people around you, but it still is legitimate solidarity. Those actions those workers are taking, those votes that they’re casting, those are all real actions caused by real feelings. Implying the feelings themselves are false seems to me to be lazy and irrational at this point… If this were the late 1800s, that probably would be the best phrasing we had for this at the time, but language evolves and I don’t think this language is illustrative/metaphorical enough to accurately portray the mechanics that our current culture allows us to portray about subjects like this.

But again, I’m not the arbiter of what’s true, correct, or what actually should happen, so what do you people think?

Hmm can someone tell me if I’m just in a “republicans are hysteric about it so it must not be that bad” mindset?

It’s obviously spyware to some degree, but this really seems more like a case of red-scare. I can’t put my finger on exactly why, though. Makes me think I might just be reacting to their reaction.

I guess, what exactly are they afraid that China is going to do with this data? It’s a missing puzzle piece that I’ve heard nothing coherent on besides “China gonna spy on muh datas”. Like, sure, maybe if you’re a government official, and I don’t think bans of tiktok on government devices are stupid, but I think the nationwide ban idea is pretty dumb and baseless. So I guess my actual question is, what are they afraid of happening, exactly?