darq

… capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

This is like the one fight that isn’t part of the culture war.

Nobody decrees who is stupid or not. That’s a judgement everyone makes for themselves.

If you want to “Give people the resources to educate themselves”, you have to have a definition of stupid and not stupid that guides your choice of what is and isn’t good education; in order to “Give them the benefit of the doubt, once”, you have to have a criteria for when they’ve stopped being stupid.

No. I don’t.

When I hear people talking about climate change like it doesn’t exist, or has “concerns” about transgender people existence, or something like that, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are just ignorant. I’ll be willing to talk to them, and maybe explain some of the misconceptions they might have.

But if they aren’t willing to listen, then they… Are either stupid or malicious. But the difference isn’t meaningful. They act exactly the same, either way.

They don’t have to agree me thinking they are either stupid or malicious. It literally changes nothing if they disagree.

What? Quite obviously not what I said.

Alright I don’t know who you are talking to, but it’s very clearly not me.

Yeah I still think you are talking about something else?

Okay, sure, what about vaccines then? Hypothetically, I think the idea that we shoot ourselves full of mercury and viruses is extremely stupid. Malicious too, by your model. And also, I don’t think climate change is real, so now I think you’re stupid and you think I’m stupid and it’s he said she said and if we both think the other is being malicious we have a brawl.

In reality though some people are right and some people are wrong. The person who talks about vaccines as just “shooting ourselves full of mercury and viruses” is either stupid or malicious. What they think of me doesn’t matter, because this conversation is about how I should treat this hypothetical person.

And that was the point I made. Ultimately it doesn’t matter if they are stupid or malicious, I should treat them the same way. Because their intent doesn’t really matter, their actions do.

The thing that fixes this is a definition of “stupid” that we both agree on that is clear, useful, and objective. What is that definition?

That is not how language or communication works…

People who are thought of as stupid, rarely agree that they are stupid. Same goes for malicious, to be honest.

I mean, people do treat those things as malicious already. So if anything returning the same treatment would be fair-play.

But more to the point, I don’t think that’s analogous to what the above posters was trying to say? A person “being” transgender/poor/an immigrant isn’t the same as say, a person denying climate change.

And that’s how I read the above commenter. There are two reasons for people to hold a climate-change-denying view, ignorance and malice. Ignorance can be met with education. But if a person begins holding onto their ignorance, their actions are fundamentally indistinguishable from malice.

I assumed it was a comment about the tactics we decide to employ when dealing with people. And at a certain point, if a person is stupid or if they’re malicious… Well it sorta does not matter.

At some point, does it matter?

Give people the resources to educate themselves. Give them the benefit of the doubt, once. But after that? Screw 'em. Move on without 'em.

Removing bigotry is the opposite of an echo chamber, really. Diverse opinions flourish when people with diverse experiences feel comfortable sharing their views.

Bigotry is a very mono-faceted opinion. It is basically always just a derivation of “Those people, who are different, are [inferior|dangerous|the cause of our problems|etc.]”. And bigotry makes people feel uncomfortable.

So by removing a single viewpoint, you encourage the discussion of many more viewpoints. Alternatively, when you tolerate bigotry, the only people who stick around are the people to whom that bigotry is tolerable. There’s a reason platforms become cesspools when they refuse to take out the trash.

I can’t really relate? At least on my desktop. The software manager integrates with Flatpaks and upgrades them at the same time.

For most apps I’m going to prefer the usual way of doing things. But there are some apps that I actually kinda prefer as Flatpaks. Like Calibre I’m happy to install as a Flatpak. The updates are faster and it doesn’t add a whole host of dependencies that only it uses to my system.

Definitely! I wouldn’t mess around with it either.

Was going to say, this sounds more like a prank from a friend who had access to the machine, than an actual hack. A malicious hacker isn’t going to drop a “hibro.txt” on your desktop to mess with you. They aren’t going to be interactively watching your session at all. They’re going to silently keylog you for financial or identity details, or they’re going to install ransomware.

i wish there was a paltform where everyone could have a respectable discussion without trolls or extremism…where people from every background could freely share their views and have a civil discussion

Such a place doesn’t exist, and has never existed. In fact, it cannot exist. Because some groups and opinions are almost mutually exclusive, so you won’t have them both in the same space. If you have a platform that tolerates hatespeech, the targets of that hatespeech will naturally leave.

If your goal is to encourage the broadest diversity of opinions, some moderation is always going to be necessary.

A lot of people think they want no moderation, but they really don’t know what they’re asking for. Setting aside illegal content, a lack of moderation just leads to deeply unpleasant places to be in. Which means the only people who stick around are the deeply unpleasant people.

And then there’s the fact that every single conversation can simply be drowned out by someone posting unfathomable amounts of Shrek pornography in every thread. And what are you going to do? Censor them? Go on… Give in to the temptation to moderate.

This. To anyone who thinks this is the Republicans being hypocritical: They know. They do not care. They are lying to your face. Pointing out the hypocrisy does literally nothing because they. Do. Not. Care.

Oh, yes capitalism has optimised my devices. But I think that’s often bad thing. Because many of those optimisations weren’t for my benefit. In fact a huge number of them are directly detrimental to me.

The tech was an open platform focused on solving problems of the people working on it. And then capitalism “optimised” it by adding advertising and spyware, locking it down, removing the ability to control or repair it, and artificially obseleting it in order to drive further sales. All at the expense of the user, and the environment.

The optimisations also often removed user choice and product differentiation, rather than added them.

This I believe can only happen under capitalism.

I don’t think I can imagine a statement more false than this.

Capitalism increasing the availability of choice, only so long as those choices are profitable. If they are not profitable, those choices are actively removed. I used to be able to find multitudes of devices that were user-maintainable, had replaceable batteries and expandable storage. But those choices are not profitable, and so they get removed.

Technology would look different under a different economic system. Likely in some ways worse, but in other ways better.

Technological development is not uniquely the product of capitalism.

capitalism isn’t the cause of any bleakness you may be seeing.

Bullcrap.

Greed and more importantly cronyism in the government is the real issue

Greed and cronyism which is directly incentivised and rewarded under capitalism.

Both you, and OP, are implicitly arguing that you should be able to both fuck off AND have the benefits of society.

No. I’m not. I’m telling you I’m not. Despite whatever nonsense you are hallucinating, that isn’t the argument I’m making.

Society can be structured differently. So resources can be distributed more fairly. So everyone can enjoy more of their time. Instead of a greedy few getting most of the benefit at the expense of the rest of us.

Anyway. Have a nice day.

Bite me, asshole.

Go be miserable somewhere else

You are using an open source platform, developed without a profit incentive, running on one of the most impactful publicly-funded infrastructure developments of our lifetimes, which is also powered by near countless free-and-open-source tech stacks.

You are on our turf, buddy.

You go somewhere else.

That is what OP is saying.

No it isn’t. That’s something you have hallucinated.

They want to know what we’d do if we weren’t forced to sell most of our time.

There’s a lot of options between having to spend the majority of our time dedicated to work, and not cooperating at all.

Not to mention most of the work we do isn’t for the benefit of our communities, but for the benefit of a tiny handful of already-incredibly rich assholes.

I agree. But again, that’s not what OP is talking about.

That would be convenient for your argument, but actually, you do not get to decide what other people are talking about based on what is most convenient for you to argue against.