And your rebuttal amounts to "if I let you mess with a trivial number of amplitudes then the error will be trivial". Well duh. Another way of phrasing what you said is that you need to control 90% of 2^2048 amplitudes. Which is Dyakanov's point, that nobody knows how to do this.
The only person who has claimed KF lead to their supposed suicide is Near/byuu after he attempted to extort the site into removing his thread. But we know he didn't kill himself as he lives in Japan and the state department releases a report every six months about the deaths of Americans overseas. It's been over a year, there have been two reports, and neither had any suicides in Japan, and the Japanese government is no slouch when it comes to paperwork. The only evidence that was ever given was a picture of an urn with byuu's name on it posted by a friend living in Hong Kong.
Nonetheless this has not stopped journalists from reporting it as fact so they can create via citeogenesis a bloody shirt to wave and justify campaigns against the KiwiFarms.
You're right, they actually gave no evidence, but if these are not the events they are referencing in their blog post (the things that the #DropKiwiFarms has been hyping up), then what is?
Two of the "lolcows" prominently featured on the front page are Ethan Ralph and Nick Fuentes. They're not nazis (they're antisocial morons), but anybody who would call the KiwiFarms a nazi site would call them nazis. The News's approach to Fuentes has been to pearlclutch and basically make him look cool to the young guys he recruits for his political cult. If anyone remembers all the embarrassing stuff that came out about him recently, guess where that information came from. Genuinely the KiwiFarms does a better job of keeping people from falling for fringe politics than the people who set out to do that. Sometimes laughter is the best medicine.
You people have built up a whole fantasy about the KiwiFarms... And its obvious when someone SWATs a person like Marjorie Taylor Greene claiming theyre from the KiwiFarms, that it's a false flag. The events CloudFlare refernces that show the site was a danger were a post from 4chan pretending to be a KiwiFarms user, and a post made a user that had previously only posted once in 2020, and then got banned 14 minutes (with 7 reports) after making threatening posts in the keffals thread, plainly another false flag trying to make the site look bad while there is a smear campaign against it. People attack and lie about the KiwiFarms because it hosts embarrassing information about them.
You're right, but people don't care about the truth. Personally I doubt that keffals is behind the attacks, since the site has been facing them for ages. A site like the KiwiFarms that compiles unsavory deeds is going to attract the ire of those same people who will do unsavory things to get that information hidden.
It's worth noting, for people unaware, that there are no suicides associate with the KiwifFarms. There have been people with threads who kave killed themselves, unrelated to them having threads, and one person who poorly faked a suicide after failing to extort the KiwiFarms into removing his thread. The site is a gossip site, not some boogeyman Law&Order-esque cyberhateden dedicated to cyberbullying gay people to death. It's absurd seeing the caterwauling the site has generated--they don't even reach the level of paparazzi who really do stalk people. All the KiwiFarms does is collect information that was already publicly available.
Academia is at the vanguard of dismissing meritocracy for politicking. If it were so great at dispassionately pursuing the truth then you wouldn't get things like decades of Alzheimer's research being based on a fraudulent study. There's nothing magical about the academy. They don't hire people of above average moral integrity and they are incentivized to publish attention grabbing findings. The result is they form cliques to protect their meal ticket theories.
Yes that is the motte to this bailey. Of course the actual consequences can range from being fired to being expelled to being publicly defamed as a racist. You still haven't given a way to decide what is or isn't a faux pas. I'll give the answer since you won't: it's whoever complains the loudest. In practice what is and isn't allowed is totally arbitrary. The only people who ever argue for that are power tripping moral crusaders.
As a reminder, all of this is about a pretend problem that produces no damage and has no victims.
What an inane comparison. Jobs are voluntary, and you're free to quit over the dress code.
And there's no way to decide what's "permitted" use of a piece of apparel anyways. Cultural significance changes within cultures, and individuals within it are not uniformly sensitive to informal use. What would you do to iconoclasts? They're culturally appropriating too. Are they allowed to introduce lighthearted use?
The "cultural appropriation" idea is the worst form of ultra-conservative hand wringing dressed up in progressive language. No actual harm is done by "misusing" clothes. This is just an excuse made up by moral busy bodies to go on yet another obnoxious crusade.
There is no inappropriate way to use clothes you own, unless you're using it to strangle someone. The people who get upset about people wearing things from "their" culture are always deracinated diaspora with no real connection to the culture. People who are healthily embedded in a culture don't get upset about foreigners "misusing" their cultural bric-a-brac, they have real lives to attend to. And if you're getting upset at a party goer wearing a grass skirt then you're in need of psychiatric help.