• 0 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

  • Libraries are safe spaces for minorities and the LGBTQ+ community. Books in general spread awareness and raise empathy and can also help struggling young people understand that they are not alone.

    That quote isn’t saying people of these communities read or use a public library more than those who aren’t; it’s pointing out that the erasure of public safe spaces and resources affects groups that benefit from their existence more.

    All of that doesn’t even mention the content that was likely present in those 500,000 books.

  • Wow. I thought to myself surely they would be using some blatant dog whistle for the removed, but nope, steam is fully letting them rate games negatively by using every slur in the book.

    This definitely looks much worse for steam than any of these sad, lifeless homunculi. I reported them and made note about how letting this group continue looks awful for steam and not taking action reads as endorsement.

  • I’m no defender of AI and it just blatantly making up fake stories is ridiculous. However, in the long term, as long as it does eventually get better, I don’t see this period of low to no trust lasting.

    Remember how bad autocorrect was when it first rolled out? people would always be complaining about it and cracking jokes about how dumb it is. then it slowly got better and better and now for the most part, everyone just trusts their phones to fix any spelling mistakes they make, as long as it’s close enough.

  • Madison, the victim, told her story online and was met with the vitriolic, violent hatred you’d expect from a woman pointing out the misogyny of the internet’s favorite tech boy. She shared her story mostly to warn other women what to expect from working there as well as a step in her own healing process.

    She never wanted to sue them since they are much wealthier than her and she kind of just wanted to move past that part of her life. Linus Media Group isn’t going to sue her for defamation because even if they can win, as they claim (which I personally have my own doubts, but I’m an outside observer with no legal education), it’s still a very bad look.

    Since no parties are bringing litigation to a court, the litigation happens in the court of public opinion.

  • xanu@lemmy.worldtoCommunism@lemmy.mlProtestation
    2 months ago

    “the space rockets…are a US invention”

    what? genuinely, what are you claiming here? any interpretation I can come up with is just patently wrong. the USSR quite famously launched the first orbiting satellite with Sputnik. The German V-2 rocket was the first man made object to break the Karman line and be “in space”. Are you talking about multistage rockets with a communication satellite payload? because as the comment you’re replying to said, multistage rockets are a Soviet idea. are you just talking about Goddard’s liquid fuel systems? because sure, that’s an American invention, but it’s almost like modern rocketry can’t be attributed to one single person, country, or certainly not a single economic philosophy. saying space rockets are a solely US invention is so hilariously America-centric that it almost reads as satire.

    The USSR and China also pushed the envelope of modern medicine just as much as the US. The first artificial heart came from a Soviet doctor. several vaccines have been developed in other countries.

    I don’t subscribe to the “great man” theory. But, it is clear that men with big ideas have impacted the world. Should they benefit from their impact. Yes!

    lmao sure, you don’t subscribe to the great man theory, you just subscribe to the theory that throughout history, the most major leaps and bounds are solely because of a few great men with big ideas and those great men should be rewarded with unfathomable wealth and power.

    I find it funny you mention Steve Jobs and Elon Musk as “great men” who, without their ideas and inventions, the world would never have come up with smartphones or electric cars and reusable rockets. y’know two of the most famous examples of some rich, vaguely charismatic person taking the ideas of their employees and trying to convince the world they did it themselves.

    Where’s Wozniak’s reward? did he have no incentive to create the iPod? the profit incentive does not breed innovation, it breeds exploitation of innovation. the innovation will always be there as long as there are humans, problems, and materials to try new ideas.

    We have no better system

    We’ve tried this one thing while deliberately kneecapping and destroying any other thing, and we’re all out of ideas! this is truly the best system we can ever do and shouldn’t try to improve it in any way!

  • This is becoming frustrating. We are on the same page that violence is the only answer; I’m only insisting that we understand that the violence has to be done against our fellow humans. It is a tragedy, but one that must be enacted because, as you say, there is no negotiation to be had here.

    Denying their humanity weakens the claim of righteousness and, moreso than enabling room for their bad faith bullshit, directly feeds into their bad faith claims of antisemitism as dehumanizing them removes genocide from the argument and all your left with is killing animals/barbarians/evil monsters. I don’t know about you, but that argument is wholly unconvincing to me. You can certainly claim that because they’ve engaged in genocide, that’s why they’ve lost their humanity, but again, it’s an unnecessary mental step that gains us nothing and weakens the argument for deploying violence against them.

    For the soldier / PTSD argument, I again disagree. Soldiers kill people. There should be no way around that fact. Dehumanization and making it easier for soldiers to mentally compartmentalize the taking of life is not a good thing and can easily be warped to make soldiers follow any order, regardless of the moral imperative. The soldiers can and should be made to understand that they are committing a traumatic amount of violence and death in order to stop an entire genocide. Violence is a tool and it must be wielded responsibly and with full understanding that the violence is both necessary and just.

    Also chill with the faux philosophical ramblings of simulations and video game analogies. I don’t care what you believe outside of this context, but this is a serious issue and talking about “disabl[ing] PvP flags for the middle east” belies that this is the real world (simulated or not) with real, serious consequences. It damages your entire argument and makes you come across like you don’t see the actual human pain and suffering this massacre has caused.

  • Yeah, I agree with everything you just said, but make no mistake, the monsters committing genocide are still human beings. Denying that blurs the line of the purpose of violence done against them and makes it difficult to understand that we must constantly be vigilant against rhetoric and propaganda that advocates for genocide as it is scarily easy for people to fall into patterns of thinking that can justify genocide.

    It is irresponsible to say that, because they are actively committing genocide against a population, they are no longer human beings and that is why they deserve violence. It’s an unnecessary extra step that opens the door for the very same genocidal thinking. They are people who have engaged in genocide with no signs of slowing down or stopping, and for that one reason alone, deserve violence until their threat is quashed. That is enough for me; I see no reason or benefit to dehumanize them to justify righteous violence.

  • No, they are people. Ignorant, hateful, and actively supporting a genocide, but people nonetheless. My comment was explicitly calling out and criticizing the impulse to dehumanize the “enemy”, real or imagined. Thinking of Zionist Israelis or Nazis as less than human not only perpetuates the mindset that allows these groups to carry out genocide, but at the same time denies how easy it is for average people to fall into such traps.

    It leads to thought processes similar to “If you have to be less than human to support a genocide, then obviously what I support can’t be genocide because I am definitely a human.”

    And I’m definitely not one of those “oh, we just have to talk to these hateful ignorant perpetuators of genocide because they simply don’t understand why they’re wrong”. I’m of the opinion that violence is absolutely necessary to uphold equality if the situation has been left to get as bad as it has. I’m mostly just railing against the idea that people who support genocide are somehow less human because of that hatred.

  • Listen to how a large portion (obviously not all) Israelis talk about Palestinians. They genuinely do not view them as humans and certainly do not value their lives. They speak of the ongoing genocide with gleeful anticipation. People will literally go to the border to taunt Palestinian parents who’ve lost their children or the orphans themselves.

    They’re not shooting a 4 year old kid, they’re simply shooting another “worthless” Palestinian. This way of thinking was and is specifically crafted to enable almost every genocide that has ever happened.