Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Rushy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 219  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 19, 2021, 02:55:19 PM »
Since taking the vaccine I've decided I love billionaires. Now I'll vote for the party that also loves billionaires.

Ah, but wait. I'm not allowed to vote for two parties at the same time. Sad!

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 19, 2021, 12:05:40 AM »
I had to get the vaccine. The clock is ticking. I can feel the devil trying to grab my soul.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 09, 2021, 02:19:46 PM »
fwiw i think it's perfectly logical to suggest that if we're not allowed to spam insults at someone on the forum, then we shouldn't be allowed to circumvent that by sending those messages as pms. no offense my dude, but you are just way way to quick to assign malice to other users simply because they don't agree with the way you see things.

also yes for sure users can just put that person on their ignore list. but it seems reasonable to say "i want to see the things this person posts on the forum but not the insulting private messages they send."

The core problem is that private messages are advertised as private. We cannot moderate messages we cannot see. If you can report a PM to a mod then the whole mod team can read it; that doesn't make it a very private message. I support adding some separate ignore list for PMs versus public forum posts, but I do not support adding public rules to private messages.

I had a similar thought to Gary’s that someone might want to engage publicly with someone’s posts but not have to deal with whatever content is sent privately. It seems a reasonable thing to do. Is there a way to have separate ignore lists for DMs and posts that is easy to implement? If there is, then that would seem a simple fix to my ignorant ass.
Sure, that should be easy enough to implement. Though I'm not sure what about the current solution is such a deal-breaker. If you ignore someone, you can view their posts just fine. Does a single click on the "hey, you previously indicated that this person upsets you, you sure you wanna read this?" button really cause you much strife?

This is a valid workaround but it's just that: a workaround. It's a clunky solution to the problem versus a feature change so that you can ignore PMs from a user but not their public posts.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 02, 2021, 02:31:02 PM »
Just two more weeks remain to Trump retaking his rightful throne!

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 28, 2021, 11:25:20 PM »
Two more weeks and Trump retakes the white house.

That is incorrect. If Apple is offering services to customers in the EU, they have to abide by the GDPR for those customers' data, regardless of where the data is stored.

Whether or not this particular scan violates the GDPR, I have no idea, but Apple isn't exempt from EU law just because they store the data in the US.

Apple has shown repeatedly in the past that they would rather pay large fines than cooperate with EU regulations. The same goes for every other US tech company. The EU simply doesn't have enough pull to properly enforce regulations as long as the US allows the behavior to continue.

Take this, for example:

Amazon has been hit with a fine for something they did in 2018. It took three years for them to finally take a small hit from doing so and they still intend to appeal, keeping the EU courts tied up in litigation perpetually. The fine Amazon ends up paying will be less than 887 million, which even at its full cost, is nothing at all to Amazon.

In the end, Apple will enforce its new meme on everyone, and while they may end up paying a fine for the trouble, they will almost certainly make more money with their new image overlord system than they would shell out in a fine to the EU.

But only in America.  Because other nations have privacy laws.

If you use Apple services, your images are automatically saved to iCloud, which physically exists in America. Being in another country won't help unless you're explicitly refusing to use iCloud, which as far as I know, isn't an optional feature on Apple devices and you agreed to use it the moment you clicked 'accept' on the terms of service.


If you own an iPhone product, Apple will now scan all of your saved images under the guise of protecting children. It will forcibly install the app onto your phone. Apple plans on releasing this spyware app on all of its products at a later date.

Shortly after reports today that Apple will start scanning iPhones for child-abuse images, the company confirmed its plan and provided details in a news release and technical summary.
The changes will roll out "later this year in updates to iOS 15, iPadOS 15, watchOS 8, and macOS Monterey," Apple said

At least they have the decency to tell you. I'd imagine Google does this already.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: August 01, 2021, 10:49:51 PM »
I’ve heard Philip DeFranco discuss conversations he’s had with YouTube reps over his issues surrounding censorship on the platform.

That's not evidence...

Ethically, I would prefer YouTube not to ban this content, but instead put barriers to entry in place, similar with what Twitter did with Trump’s shitposting but I also think a private enterprise shouldn’t be forced to do business with someone they don’t wish to, especially when it’s not a protected class.

I am concerned about Google’s search algorithm, but it’s incumbent on me to use alternative search engines, which is a trivial solution. If we want to have this sort of regulation of tech companies they need to made in to utilities. We have all but formally admitted that video streaming is an essential tool of today’s communication.

It seems that you're fine with private businesses censoring people as long as competition exists, but history shows that businesses easily collaborate when their interests align. This means in the internet sphere where only two or three businesses are competing in a certain realm, it becomes pretty easy to effectively control what information the vast majority of people see.

In the case that they don't collaborate, removing a video from Youtube probably prevents thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people from seeing it, for better or worse. Most people don't go through a great deal of effort to hunt things down (most people can't be pained to look up basic information about their local reps, even). Information control doesn't need to be absolute to do serious damage.

I would agree to give more rights to 'private business' in this regard if their market share was limited, but right now most of the information on the internet is controlled by only a handful of tech companies. Google's search engine market share is 92%. Imagine how much of a difference their proprietary algorithm makes on the information that billions of people view every day. 

That is absolutely not what has happened here and you know it.
Given how powerful YouTube is, don't you think they have some responsibility to police what is posted if the content is untrue and harmful to public health? There should be some limits on what can be posted.
There is a potential issue here of course, who is the arbiter of truth? I guess in this example, they are. But the internet being a free for all where anyone can post anything without scrutiny isn't working out too well, I'd suggest it's a big part of the "post truth" world we now live in.

Not only are they the arbiter of truth, they don't have to tell you exactly what they un-truthed. They tell the public "no, you're not allowed to hear that" and that's that. My stance would be closer to that of Rama's if Google's market share in video hosting were closer to 20% of the market instead of 70%.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: August 01, 2021, 07:07:07 PM »
YouTube can and does provide information about bans to channels behind the scenes. Just because they don’t announce to the public the specific details of what warranted a ban, does not mean they routinely proceed in an obfuscating mannner.

Do you have evidence of that?

I also wonder why anyone thinks YouTube shouldn’t be able to ban people from using their platform. They are a private business, after all. Surely they shouldn’t be forced to carry content of any sort without discretion? Seems pretty authoritarian.

That's a surprisingly libertarian viewpoint from you. If one large conglomerate controls the majority of online information, do you think it's okay for the owner to suppress any information they don't like? For example, say Google's board decides it really doesn't like a particular political candidate. You are no longer allowed to search for their name on Google, you are not allowed to make posts using that name on Google's servers or allowed to post videos about that candidate. Is that perfectly okay because they are a private business? How much power in the hand of private business is too much? Google is also an Internet Service Provider (ISP). Should an ISP be able to block political traffic they disagree with?

Youtube has competitors, but controls 74% of the user-based video streaming market. That's a pretty powerful hand on the valve of information. Imagine all of the things that Google hides from you on a daily basis that you never hear about because Google hid them from you in the first place.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: August 01, 2021, 06:33:29 PM »
About time something was done about these damaging lies

"YouTube did not point to specific items but said it opposed material that "could cause real-world harm"."

Do you think it would be right if I ban you for a week then refuse to tell you why aside from saying I oppose material that "could cause real-world harm"? It should be concerning that YouTube:

1. Has enough power and control that banning a channel makes a large impact on the availability of information.
2. Exercises this control at their own discretion and does not specify what caused the removal aside from a vague platitude.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 24, 2021, 12:20:25 AM »
The correct risk control behavior is to:

1. Not take the vaccine, wear a mask when necessary and avoid social gatherings
2. Encourage other people to take it (as long as they aren't family or friends)

Then, you successfully take full advantage of having others shoulder the burden of possible vaccine side effects while acquiring herd immunity.

Please get vaccinated, by the way.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: July 02, 2021, 04:00:05 PM »
Not quite. A "tomboy" will still be told that they can't be with men in gender-segregated facilities

That's because she is not a man.

, and people will usually insist on using the pronoun "she".

Because she isn't a man. The pronoun "she" does not refer to a role, it refers to an object (a female human). We're not at the point technologically where people switch their genetics around to other sexes.

Although they may be accepted by their friends, there is constant reinforcement everywhere they go that their identity is wrong, or at the very least abnormal. Are you capable of placing yourself in someone else's position for a moment and trying to imagine what this would be like?

You can't identify as something else and expect others to bend reality around you. This is back to the old "I'm an attack helicopter!" meme. You're no longer talking about gender roles, rendering your original point moot.

I agree, to an extent — I think the correct solution is to simply let everyone be however they want, with no arbitrary expecations based on their genitals. But we live in an imperfect world, and transgenderism is an imperfect solution that makes people happier in the world.

If the argument is that gender roles shouldn't exist, then the transgender movement is going the wrong way to attack it. The problem is that I believe you are confused, the transgender movement is not an inherent problem with gender roles, it's a problem with biological ones. That's why they're attacking the words "man" and "woman". Not the roles they represent.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: July 02, 2021, 03:43:13 PM »
I think a large part of the confusion — willing as it may be on the part of some — arises from the fact that "male" and "female" are terms used to describe both sex and gender. So, let's refer to gender "blue" and "orange" instead, and see what difference that makes.

There is a correlation between being male and being blue, just as males tend to be taller and stronger than women. But as in all things, there are exceptions. Some men are orange, and some women are blue, because your blueness/orangeness is not defined by your sex. Having a Y chromosome doesn't make you blue, and lacking one doesn't make you orange.

The problem arises when there is a social expectation for all males to be blue, and all women to be orange. This is so deeply ingrained into our society that we have begun to refer to blueness as "masculinity" and orangeness as "femininity", and we tell anyone who diverges from this arbitrary rule that they are wrong about themselves.

Can you understand why blue women might be unhappy about being forced to act orange all the time?

Blue women aren't forced to act orange all the time. We already have terms for women that take up traditional masculine roles: tomboys. We don't literally refer to them as men, because they aren't. "man" and "woman" are not gender roles. If anything, the transgenderism movement is a toxic reinforcement of gender roles, not a denial of them.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: July 02, 2021, 03:40:05 PM »
Hot takes have landed.

i can't wait until all the "omg but you have to do what your genes say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111222222223333333" people find out about eyeglasses.

if you're a genetic essentialist, i don't see how it's deniable.

You're going to have to go into more detail about this, since it's not immediately apparent what your point is. I presume this is intentional and definitely a passive aggressive form of dodging the debate entirely; something that's quite endemic to the transgender movement in general.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: July 02, 2021, 02:02:55 PM »
Transgenderism fundamentally doesn't make sense. A man who looks a lot like a woman and dresses like one is called a trap and traps are gay.

A man is a male human.

A woman is a female human.

People who are neither male or female are not man or woman. The transgenderism movement is just elites finding out how much they can gaslight modern society.

The primary problem with the EU is that its structure heavily mimics the outdated and completely worthless UK parliamentary system (as do many other European nations). The irony that the UK can't handle being part of a government that's nearly an exact replica of their own government because it's incompetent is completely lost on them.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 05, 2021, 01:37:07 PM »
That's the opposite of what I was saying. I referred to the stereotypes, which I don't personally follow but I don't feel any less of a woman because of it.

I can't pretend to know what a trans person is thinking, but I can try to imagine what it would be like to feel so out of place with your body that you'd rather transition and put up with all this bullshit just to feel like yourself.

What does it mean to 'transition'. What key difference is there between, say, a regular man and a man who has 'transitioned' into a woman? What does one have that the other does not?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 05, 2021, 01:26:59 AM »
You're not going to get anything you want from me with this question. There is no one way to be or do anything. Hell, I break a lot of typical female stereotypes. I know of a couple trans women that are way more feminine than I am. This is pointless.

Why is being a woman related at all to being 'feminine', though? If a female human wears jeans, gymbros it up, drinks beers, does an infinite load of 'stereotypical man' cultural references, is there an inflection point where that female human *is* a man or is it a woman that chooses that lifestyle? It seems that you've dissolved enough of what the words mean to the point that they have no meaning at all, which is likely why you're having such an incredibly difficult time giving me a concrete definition of the words.

Here, I can define them easily: a man is a male human and a woman is a female human. And of course, there are people who are neither male nor female due to a disorder and those people are neither man nor woman.

Instead of modernizing what we once called 'gender roles', we've instead reinforced them so hardcore that people must literally identify as the opposing sex to perform the role they desire. Is that healthy?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trans athletes
« on: June 05, 2021, 12:59:08 AM »
Honestly, it's difficult for me to picture people without more descriptive characteristics. But, a child with maybe longer hair and maybe wearing a dress. But not all girls have long hair or like dresses and some boys do have long hair and like dresses. I just picture a kid.

People are so varied I don't have a prototype for "man" or "woman" without more prompting. I'd probably just end up picturing a man or woman I know.

You say that a girl isn't necessarily one that wears dresses or has long hair, so we can't go by physical choices, then. So, what does a girl have that a boy does not? If we go back to 'female brain', what does a female brain do that a male brain does not?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 219  Next >