FussyZeus · HackerTrans

Oh yes it’s absolutely privileged. Doesn’t make it less true. The GP asked why Americans were so ready to use a Chinese social network. My answer is they don’t care because they don’t think of it as overtly Chinese, and those that do don’t really care unless they have a reason to.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

The globe increasingly feels so connected as to make people not question where things like social networks reside. In the mind of average people, until they have a political axe to grind, the Nation is all but obsolete. The only time the idea has any sticking power is when people are concerned about jobs. Other than that, nobody seems to care all that much.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

More to the point, part of publishing on the App Store is fulfilling the requirements. If the requirements include you must send a video to them of you standing on your head and blowing a party whistle, that's what you have to do. If you don't want to, you're free to not develop for Apple devices.

That you get away with not doing it for any amount of time is not an excuse. It's Apple's sandbox; play by their rules, or play elsewhere.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

Except that Western civilization as in the minds of it's inhabitants likely wouldn't have existed without the subjugation and exploitation of those other societies, including but not limited to: China, India, the Middle East, most of Africa minus Ethiopia, and even some parts of Europe, and much more recently, South America.

The West has largely won because it won a lot back in the day, and that inertia builds up and continues to favor us.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

Just as a minor correction: Nobody is telling you that you specifically are the problem. The problem is that as a white male, what is called "western society" was built with you as the presumed default, and that confers to you tons of small benefits that fall into one of two categories:

1) Unfair advantages that allow you certain freedoms other groups don't have, that one could argue no one should have

2) Advantages that everyone should have, but due to being ethnic or female, they don't.

The best example I usually have for this is that when I'm pulled over by a cop for speeding, I'm annoyed to be sure and it's going to be a really bad inconvenience and probably a fair financial burden too. But I don't fear for my life. I'm not panicking on whether or not my vehicle will be searched or if the officer might plant something on me. That's not to say those things can't happen, but it's intrinsically not on my mind at all, even though it could. And those things happen to other groups all the time.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

> Is it wrong to be so uninformed?

I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I would say it is an expression of privilege. People who don't find their race, gender or identity regularly being touted as either some up and coming new social fad or the boogeyman to a given group that oppose them and the source of everything evil in the world or what have you can pretty safely disconnect from the discourse with no real ramifications to their lives.

So again, no I wouldn't say it's wrong, and hell, I have to disconnect occasionally too simply to keep my sanity. But I also say that from a similar position of privilege. I don't have lawmakers attempting to restrict my rights, my gender and race aren't an oppressed group. But, exercising privileges doesn't make you a bad person in my book so long as you're not fighting to maintain those privileges at the expense of others.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

I don't disagree, but when so many public websites are unloading megabytes of Javascript for simple tasks, it feels like that attitude is the core problem. I'm not opposed to using frameworks when they're needed, I just have a problem with people using them to shorten up already short and very easy code because they can't be bothered to Google for a few minutes.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

I mean, if all you're doing is showing and hiding a mobile menu, you can do that in a really expanded form in like 5 lines of vanilla JS, and not have your user download 90 KB* of crap.

*And you BETTER be using the minified version for production.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

I think jQuery got a bad rap because so many script kiddies would drop the entire damn framework into a page when they just didn't feel like writing a standard selector to do a mobile menu.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

> No, I'm not, and I don't think that. I'm saying you're intolerant of those people according to the definition you gave. That's it.

That is not intolerance.

> I'm sure it wouldn't, but that's irrelevant.

How is your example being flawed irrelevant?

> Refusing to share social, political, or professional rights with someone because they were born in the wrong place and don't meet your reasonable requirements means you are intolerant of them, according to that definition you gave.

No, it doesn't. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to not allow a person into a country. If they are not vaccinated against certain diseases, for example. Or if they have outstanding warrants for their arrest in other countries (unless of course they're seeking asylum).

You're (I think deliberately) clouding the difference between legitimate reasons to deny entry and intolerance.

> Telling people they can't express genuinely held beliefs is, I think, a pre-cursor to real world violence. Avoiding real world violence is a totally reasonable objective to have in mind when crafting law.

Your right to express a belief ends in my mind where said belief intends harm, be it physical, economic, mental or whatever form of harm, on another person. And in turn, anyone who intends that harm and engages in such speech, either for actual beliefs or simply to make money off of those susceptible to that sort of manipulation, should be punished.

> I agree. So? Which ones are you willing to kill your fellow countrymen over?

Nobody is killing anyone. You and people who think like you will be outvoted, and dragged to a prosperous future whether you want it or not.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

> OK, so you are unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with the people that don't meet those requirements, and who happen to have been born outside of your country. Sounds to me like you're intolerant of them, according to the second definition. Do you disagree? Would you like to revise your definition once more so that it more narrowly refers to the right people?

You're deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying. I have no problem with a country instituting an immigration policy, nor am I intolerant of people not born in my country. You're trying to put forth that I cannot both respect the rule of law of a civil society while still respecting human rights on a larger scale. These ideas are not at odds, and won't be no matter how many times you try and make it sound that way.

At it's core your example is bad because there are tons of other variables involved in an immigration process that have nothing whatsoever to do with culture, speech, views, religion, etc. (and, taken further, a properly designed immigration policy in my mind wouldn't take any of those into account anyway.) In short, it's apples and oranges.

> I know very well why I dislike the idea that some of my countrymen should be suppressed under the law for expressing their genuinely held beliefs and advocating for what they see as their own interests, whether or not some dictionary definition calls their ideas intolerant.

"Genuinely held beliefs" are a terrible basis from which to derive law. We don't make murder illegal because people think it's mean to kill people, or because a divine deity said not to. We do it because it infringes on their right to live.

If 2016 should teach you anything, it's that genuinely held beliefs by large amounts of people, no matter how large they are and no matter how much they believe them, do not constitute reality. End of. Reality is reality and beliefs are beliefs, and while they occasionally agree, one is real, and the other is not.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

> Yes, are you willing to grant or share social, political, or professional rights with everyone on this earth (except perhaps bigots)?

Yes.

> In other words, do you think it's intolerant for a country to have any immigration system other than open borders (except that bigots don't have to be allowed in) or any exclusive political benefits for its citizens, such as the right to vote?

I think it's perfectly acceptable for a country to have a reasonable set of requirements and a well documented and transparent process to attain citizenship of a country, and the benefits which citizenship confers, i.e. state benefits, school attendance, the right to vote, and safety protections.

> Because if so, you've just declared the majority of people in this country to be bigots, who in your view should not be tolerated according to the second definition, i.e. you don't want to grant them equal freedoms or share social, political, or professional rights with them.

I hope you had a protein bar or something after making all those leaps.

I have said nothing of the sort. Not being a citizen of the United States doesn't make anyone a bigot. Conversely, being a citizen of the Unites States also doesn't mean you aren't a bigot. These terms are completely unrelated from each other and I have no idea how you think this tortured logic is supposed to work.

Perhaps instead of coming up with bizarre theories on how the people intolerant of intolerance are the REAL intolerant ones, maybe you should reflect on why you feel so personally attacked by the idea that intolerance shouldn't be tolerated?

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

I think you misunderstood, I was agreeing with you and expanding on your point. Not arguing.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

If evidence-based thinking is radical to you then I'm not sure what to tell you.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

> Why is saying "we should not tolerate X" not intolerant speech, when it is literal advocacy of intolerance in the form of speech?

Because like any other law in any society, context is taken into account. You're deliberately twisting what would normally be said in this situation, something like:

"Parents must feed their children"

Into a ridiculous alike of:

"We should not tolerate parents not feeding their children"

Which is not only how literally not a single person alive speaks, but is also a transparent attempt to make a ridiculous example that wouldn't happen to discredit the idea of banning intolerant speech.

The dictionary defines intolerance as: 1 : unable or unwilling to endure, which is applicable to the sort of example you're putting forward, which is as a side-note, an excellent example of a tendency of right-leaning people to put forward arguments that, while logically sound, in any context look and are ridiculous. I know this, because I spent a long time doing it myself. Now, being that we're two smart people having a discussion, we're going to use the second definition, which is clearly what is being discussed and is relevant to the question:

2a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters, b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights

RE: Bigotry, which is what is behind so many movements in this vein. Speech from these movements can and should be suppressed under the law, citing that the things they are saying are intolerant, because their speech is putting forth the argument that a certain group of whatever kind of people should be denied some kinds of expression or rights in the public space, and it's doing so, going back to my original comment, for no reason or logic, but to indulge their bigotry.

Questions?

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

> People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not?

No.

Because not feeding your children is not speech.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

Fetuses are not human beings by any scientific definition. Even without being aborted, a fetus is far from guaranteed to be born. A lot can happen in 9 months.

If the mother has a miscarriage, is she now a murderer? If she's in a car accident and loses the baby, is the other person involved in the crash a murderer? Does it depend on who was at fault in the accident?

If a doctor fails to see a birth defect in time, are they now charged with manslaughter?

Does a mother collect child support from a father at time of conception? Do they collect state benefits from the beginning of their pregnancy?

This thing conservatives want to do of making fetuses people is a bottomless pit of regulatory gotchas. It's ridiculous.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

> So if science and logic one day makes a good case for you to be intolerant you will then leave the tolerant side and become intolerant?

Yes. And since there is no reason or logic behind intolerance, I'm not seeing that as a risky bet of any sort.

And you're right, I don't have consideration for this topic because there is no topic as far as I'm concerned. I used to be on the right, and I used to hold all kinds of cognitive dissonances in my head at once to explain the belief system therein. And yes, it made total sense to me at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight and a lot of experience in life, I can say with complete confidence that I was 100% full of shit, indoctrinated into a moral system that has no basis in any kind of rational thought, that is largely based on fear and maintaining a status quo under which I benefitted greatly.

There is no reason behind intolerance. There is bigotry, fear, oftentimes disgust, and occasionally just good old fashioned hate. But there is no reason, no logic, and certainly no science.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

We have laws that address child neglect. I'm not sure why so many in this thread think if we forbid intolerant speech that we're also in the same motion casting the entire book of laws into the trash...? It's a very odd segue.

FussyZeus

7 anni fadiscuss

I would say this example is also flawed because children scream in public all the time. It's just... reality. Kids scream sometimes for any number of good or not good reasons and making the parent feel even shittier than they already do about disturbing everyone around them isn't going to solve anything.

comments