In a pandemic, we make weird friends. I much prefer some pro conservative anti abortion org asking for less censorship than a dozen woke newspapers and rumor mills calling me a fascist or antivaxxer because I don't treat science as an unquestionable holy cow. Or while propping up corrupt politicians because they're on the same team.
I don't need to agree with someone 100% in order to agree that doing X will make the world more like what i want it to be like.
In this case, if this org is wrong, the answer is counterspeech based on facts, not shooing people away from afar without a chance to listen. Because that is the tic of the authoritarian who is intellectually bankrupt.
Just because Wikipedia says it, doesn't mean it's widely known or accurate. Labeling things as denialism is itself a common trick in misinformation. It flattens whatever the original argument was.
There is a common conflation today where criticism of X policy is confused with being anti-X.
The medical censorship is getting so bad that organizations like this now seem pretty useful and on point. I don't need to agree with all their claims to have common ground with them.
Certainly more than the people who see covid as an endless license to control what others are allowed to read or hear.
The real generational divide is people who feel this post in their bones and people who will nitpick at it because it's not in fact an unbiased survey.
The point about focus is very true. The socialization of development via online tools means people think sticking their nose in other people's code is a virtue instead of a bother. If you're not going to contribute, why are you interrupting me?
Which of these principles demands you let a cabal of intersectionalists flag their enemies off the front page? Just curious where the intellectual curiosity and lack of reflexiveness comes in.
I ask because if there's one thing I've noticed, it's that these people are unable to tell the difference between low quality arguments and low status arguments. Consistently.
If you truly believe abortion is wrong but is better than the alternative of bringing unwanted children into the world, then you should also support fathers having the right to opt out from supporting a child they didn't want.
This would act as a strong incentive for women to think twice before bringing a child into the world by themselves, with a father who resents them. Fatherlessness and a lack of positive male role models is a real issue in certain communities (cough black America).
Funnily enough, this argument never flies, because "the interests of the child" is the excuse for why "the interests of the mother" take precedence.
Your attempt at couching your comment in disclaimers is hilarious. You don't just give supremacists ammunition, you make everyone laugh at the absurdity.
"Part of the culture" is bad... And "correlated with the culture" is good. But "exude pathological behavior" is where you end.
Have you figured out yet that language policing is just tiptoeing around the things you're not supposed to notice?
It also allows for plausible deniability to surgically remove certain viewpoints without anyone noticing. This is not an acceptable trade off if you value freedom of expression and have an understanding of how bad ideologues are at impartial moderation, confusing disagreement for low effort, lack of intelligence or insincerity.
HN has had a problem for years that heterodox views and facts on culture war issues are censored. The enforcement mechanisms are abused to do this. The mods deny it.
So either the mods are lying about their own actions, or they are not in control of their own site and sufficiently sophisticated flagging works to ban certain viewpoints.
If the latter is true, then shadowbanning is not getting rid of trolls, it is entrenching an elite of them.
Give me the speed of fastmail with the encryption of protonmail, make the two talk to each other out of the box, and actually make something new instead of just the same old thing.
Actually, loan some of your devs to protonmail because both their mobile app and their imap bridge are embarrassing.
That's a nice theory. How does the fact that the FBIs own screenshots of the threads, submitted as evidence, show they posted the comments egging people on?
I don't need to agree with someone 100% in order to agree that doing X will make the world more like what i want it to be like.
In this case, if this org is wrong, the answer is counterspeech based on facts, not shooing people away from afar without a chance to listen. Because that is the tic of the authoritarian who is intellectually bankrupt.