Ah i think i see.
That quote is not from my post, i think you meant to reply to the OP.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 321
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 321
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- JumpLocked
‘It’s Total Chaos Internally at Meta Right Now’: Employees Protest Zuckerberg’s Anti LGBTQ Changes
I don't think understand what you are asking, would you mind adding a bit more detail please ?
- JumpLocked
‘It’s Total Chaos Internally at Meta Right Now’: Employees Protest Zuckerberg’s Anti LGBTQ Changes
Question, and this may not be the perfect place for this, but is it the phrasing that LGBTQ is a mental “illness” that’s the problem here, or that it’s a mental attribute at all?
There are many possible reasons why people might be upset at this change.
For example, loosening the moderation and restrictions like this it empowers people who are coming at this specifically with malice in mind to act with impunity.
I’m an LGBT supporter, so I’m not coming at this from a place of malice, I suppose it’s curiosity and ignorance. Don’t we basically understand that the way we function as humans is all a part of our brain chemistry, and that certain deviations from the norm cause things like ADD, homosexuality, musical creativity, etc etc?
That's a complicated question, with a lot of what i would consider reductive phrasing.
"Deviations from the norm" would imply that there is a specific baseline "norm" to point at, when it's much more of a vague idea of what is average, which changes over time and with increased understanding/study.
Grouping ADD, homosexuality and musical creativity together is also a bit of a stretch IMO.
ADD can be classified as a divergence from the very rough average baseline of brain function, but even then it encompasses a wide range of differences and these differences vary from person to person.
This is evidenced by how they diagnose these conditions ( ADD, ASD, Anxiety disorder etc), which is through questionnaires and assessments by professionals.
It's not a
"You tick the 10 ADD boxes so you get the label" kind of thing,
it's more
"You exhibit enough of these wide range symptoms with a large enough difference from the vague baseline that we would put you roughly in to this category"
Opinions on homosexuality being nature vs nurture vs "some other thing" is a whole other giant kettle of fish.
And musical "talent" can have many sources, depending on your definition.
The word illness seems way too strong, as we as a society have decided we don’t have anything against that personal trait/lifestyle/whatever
It's commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.
Look up what they used to call "Hysteria" and what that enabled them to justify as "medical procedures".
I'm sure there are people who legitimately think it's some sort of illness but i'd put my money on the majority just being arseholes using it as an excuse.
but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?
Depends on if you consider homosexual behaviour as something unnatural.
My personal opinion is that anything we do is "natural" as we are a part of nature, not outside of it.
Putting that argument aside however, there are instances of homosexual behaviour in animals other than humans.
It also heavily depends on your definition of "abnormal", for instance, would you consider left-handedness a mental abnormality ?
Again I don’t want to get caught up in feelings here, because I think people will hear that and take offence to it since no one wants to be “abnormal”
They might take offence because words have contextual meaning associated with them.
The strict definition of the word abnormal isn't particularly useful here , it's only when it's given context that it makes sense.
My view is that the word "abnormal" when used in the context of homosexuality has been continually used as a weapon, a way to normalise and justify bigotry.
If you establish up front what it is exactly you mean (for me this would need to include what you mean by "normal"), then you might get more positive responses.
but that is the concensus is it not?
As far as i understand it, no, it is not.
AI is far from a force multiplier for software development in it's current incarnation, could be eventually but not right now.
It's just magic looking enough to seem enticing to CEO's and project managers, it'll even out eventually unless something gets significantly better with the current gen.
AI + "cheap labour"* is absolutely a recipe for disaster in the mid to long term but if you are a CEO and the line is going up in the short term who tf cares about the mid to long term.
*By "cheap labour" i mean inexperienced and/or inappropriately skilled, there are inexpensive devs around who do excellent work, i'm not talking about them.
Being left or right doesn't change what a false equivalency is neither does describing each side in more detail.
This is
"I'm a left winger, the smooth mostly round seeded fruit that shares a name with the color orange is in fact the same as the road vehicle with four wheels, commonly used for transportation of goods that we normally call a car or 'automobile' in the old days"
I mean, I can list the false equivalencies if you like?
To clarify im not saying the point I think you're trying to make is incorrect (though I do disagree with it), I'm saying you're doing a bad job of making it.
If you are going to try and put forth or defend a position don't do it with faulty logic and/or fallacies.
[Attenborough voice]
"And here we see a wild false equivalency in it's natural habitat. Camouflaged and perfectly suited to it's environment, it goes unnoticed by many"
"Some humans have started recording the mating calls of this and other closely related cousins in the misinformationum ridiculosus family in hope of harnessing the power of the sounds for themselves, results have been varied"
- JumpNSFW
etnrwtnrtnrntrn
absolutely all of this
I disagree, the consequences of how people see and interact with you based on that one vote isn't separate from any other consequences the vote has.
TL;DR;
Hyperbole and "black and white" thinking aren't a good foundation for claiming moral superiority.
I’m familiar. I don’t know how anyone on Lemmy would not be familiar with it by this point as it’s one of the main go to justifications people use for treating others like shit.
That's....certainly....one of the takes of all time.
I'm personally astounded you chose that particular quote, but i'll highlight an important part for you as well.
as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion
I personally wouldn't attribute "open to rational argument" and "kept in check by public opinion" as hallmarks of a majority of trump voters, but that's just me.
Daryl Davis, a black musician who managed to turn multiple KKK members by simply engaging with them as human beings.
A good example of a single person making a difference.
I'm genuinely not sure how you think this can be applied at scale, are you expecting all the people who didn't vote for trump to dedicate their lives to reforming the people actively trying to do horrible things to them.
My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump,
Roughly half of the people who voted, but ok.
it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.
A few things:
"Just decide" implies it was a sudden decision with no lead up, that is incorrect.
Where are you getting the idea that people are expecting trump voters to magically change for the better?
It sounds like you would like them to, which is nice, but that's a broad generalisation for no citation.
My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump, it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.
That's an extreme amount of projection.
Broadly claiming that everyone is the maximum amount of intolerant to anyone even slightly of the grouping you've specified is disingenuous at best, further claiming they are all doing this to magically change the minds of said group is equally ridiculous.
and further down :
self righteously justify not making any fucking attempt to reach these people and turn them.
If you genuinely think no attempts have been made up to now, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I'm sure it's an interesting story.
Self-righteous, like "nobody but me is doing the thing i think is right, in the way that i think is correct" ?
Feels like I’m taking crazy pills.
It feels that way because you've set up a catch-all scenario which encompasses your specific perspective and doesn't allow for perspectives that don't align.
If you remove the ability to handle nuance from your perspective then any nuance that arises will seem crazy.
Example of nuance.
"A non-trivial portion of this group of people have voted a specific way, with the understanding that doing so will materially endanger people i love, I have a limited amount of energy and I'm choosing not to spend it sorting through who are the 'saveable' bigots and instead direct that energy toward protecting my loved ones (and myself) from the consequences of their actions."
True, the difference i suppose is the body count, both location and volume.
Gonna be hard to calculate those numbers though.
I don’t agree with this. Operation warp speed was Trump’s project. When it comes to COVID, I feel like he was pro-vaccine since the beginning. Back then it was also the democrats who were expressing scepticism about the safety of it because they didn’t trust Trump and felt like the vaccine was rushed and not properly tested.
Fair enough, i don't agree that he was pro-vaccine, rather pro self-interest, but outcome wise i'm not sure it matters.
Assuming his stance wasn't antivax, it could be argued that he could have done much more with his platform to push for vaccine adoption, given the clear anti-vax stance a large proportion of his base had/has taken, but that's an entirely different argument.
He has said sceptical things about masks that has caused distrust and conspiracies in the MAGA population. I don’t see the need to defend him on that one.
Its less about you defending him and more about omitting a position that conflicts with the narrative of the reply you provided.
Emphasising the point that correlates with your (in general , not you specifically) narrative and omitting the point that doesn't, is a common bad faith tactic.
Perhaps that isn't what you were doing, but it could easily be interpreted that way, and that's what i think you were asking for when requesting examples.
Sure, but what I mean is that simply being downvoted doesn’t alone mean the information is incorrect and the opposite is true as well.
Sure, but it was written in such a way as to imply that downvote = "people don't like the truth".
Which is a classic bad faith stance to take.
That you weren't actually taking that stance is clear now, but not from the original text ( at least to me )
There’s comments in this tread with false info that’s being upvoted.
Agreed.
Oh it’s definitely a right-wing thing but I wouldn’t exactly blame Trump for all of it. He even got booed at his own rally for telling people to get vaccinated.
In a context where you know this was after a relatively long period of him not doing that.
It's disingenuous to the point of bad faith to present that as a bolstering remark (with no context until someone called you on it) to reduce accountability.
This reply was also in response to someone using masks and vaccines as conversation points, you responded to this by citing an event out of context and completely ignoring the mention of masks.
Downvotes simply mean people don’t like what I’m saying - not that it’s wrong
Also incorrect, they can dislike what you are saying and it can also be wrong, they aren't mutually exclusive.
Given the quality of your other responses i'd assume you know this (though i could be incorrect), so presenting it as a fact is either an oversight or intentional.
It could be argued that the some of the processes used to decaffeinate the beans can substantially change the flavour profile.
As an organisation they have historically been and continue to be, truly shitty.
But what are you using for sources here ?
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Ah, so it's a mutual block but initiated from one side.
Thanks.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Is...that not what's supposed to happen?
I don't have any other socials so I'm not too up on what the standards are.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
How so?
1/2
No problem, i recognise the style of question because it's how i would approach it.
As you correctly noted a few times, this is an emotionally charged topic so a higher than normal amount of people will interpret the question through the lens of their emotions
Even with the best intentions and most detailed prefaces you should still manage your expectations on the types and tone of replies you will get to such a question.
I think of it this way :
In more concise wording, people are going to people, don't let them foist their issues on to you, engage when you want, disengage when you don't.
At least that's what works for me.
I do see what you mean, what i was saying is that the understanding of "norm" isn't very clearly defined in these sorts of cases.
Eye colour is relatively easy (within defined colour brackets) you can look at the single item of data and categorise so it's easy to partition the population based on something like that.
With things like mental health diagnoses we can't even reliably agree upon what brackets to apply so it's significantly more difficult to apply the idea of a norm.
in turn that makes the idea of abnormal equally difficult to define.
I agree with them all being functions of brain chemistry.
Though i don't rule out something we'd consider supernatural or spiritual because honestly i don't really know much of anything to be definitively ruling out something like that.
I don't subscribe to them in my daily life, but who knows.
The answer to most of this is "it's complicated" and we're basically using best guesses at this point, these guesses are based on scientific principles, but all that science really is is a semi-concrete method of defining and refining what our best guesses currently are.
What i was trying to convey is that while all of these things could be considered "attributes", in reality it's much more nuanced than it seems, musical talent has many forms, as does ADD and sexual orientation/preference.
Honestly i'd consider most brain stuff to just be unique expressions of an individual, rather than a set of labels, but that isn't very helpful in most circumstances.