Anyone who says

For me it’s saying, “we can’t joke about anything anymore”.

Sirens go off immediately 🚨

So the authors of these books?

• The female
• Females
• Single Black female
• Females and Harry Potter
• Fierce females on television: a cultural history
• Warriors, witches, women: mythology’s fiercest females
• How Can They Tell If I Am Male Or Female? Gender Stereotypes in Disney Movies
• Mistress, mother, muse: an exploration of the female in modern and contemporary Mediterranean literature
• Gender and identity in Franz Grillparzer’s classical dramas: figuring the female
• Livy’s women: crisis, resolution, and the female in Rome’s foundation history
• A heritage of her own?: Allusion and tradition in female-authored poetry of the Hellenistic age
• African American females: addressing challenges and nurturing the future
• Gender, supernatural beings, and the liminality of death: monstrous males/fatal females
• Women who fly: goddesses, witches, mystics, and other airborne females
• A house full of females: plural marriage and women’s rights in early Mormonism, 1835-1870

Or of various feminist book titles featuring the noun?

Or the vast amount of people who use the noun self-referentially in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), or natural communication? In conventional language, it’s an acceptable word.

Maybe you have this wrong, and instead it’s those who in effect (which may defy intent) stigmatize an entire gender by claiming their noun is wrong instead of embracing it as a word of pride.

Y’all have heard of the Nazi Bar problem, right?

Bullshit genetic or reductio ad hitlerum fallacy. Carried to its logical conclusion, anything tainted by Nazis (eg, the universe) is a Nazi bar. Have you considered finding yourself another universe to inhabit, since this one is irredeemably tainted? While we may argue the universe is far too vast to be a “Nazi bar”, so is the internet or any “platform”.

Worse, censoring ideas gives them covert power. It doesn’t discredit them or strip them of power like challenging them in a public forum could. It’s also a disservice to better ideas

• it withholds opportunities for people to become competent enough advocates to discredit bad ideas
• instead of deradicalize opponents, it drives their discussion elsewhere: they continue to radicalize & grow opposition unchallenged.

Censorship is incompetent advocacy: it mistakes suppressing the expression of bad ideas for effective advocacy that directly discredits bad ideas, develops intellectual growth, and steers toward better ideas.

Paradox of intolerance?

The bogus social media version subverting the original message or the real one?

Karl Popper opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism.

Only cowards fear words. Words are not the danger. It’s the dangerous people whose words we fail to discredit.

Well that’s fucking stupid when we know deplatforming works. Also you’re using specific definitions to deliberately misunderstand the paradox of tolerance so this is a stupid argument in the first place.

Your willful ignorance & stubborn denial of Karl Popper’s directly quoted writing on the subject is not a valid argument. Multiple references cited prove you wrong & you’ve cited nothing. Conventional definitions found here & all over the place (from wikipedia & to SEP) fit Karl Popper’s usage and prove you’re wrong. You’re just wrong.

A fucking high school intellect wrote that garbage article. Also, fuck pacifism, that’s a tool of fascists.

You should be troubled that highschooler can refute you: work on yourself.

And next time use your own words instead of a gpt.

Cool speculative ad hominem: beep boop. Supposing an AI reasons better than you should also trouble you. Try arguing better with logic & evidence next time, genius.

Other tech CEOs, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Snap’s Evan Spiegel, and Tesla’s Elon Musk, have also spoken about limiting their children’s access to devices. Gates has said he did not give his children smartphones until age 14 and banned phones at the dinner table entirely. Snap CEO Evan Spiegel, in 2018, said he limits his child to the same 1.5 hours per week of screen time as Thiel.

Seems like these failures suing them & demanding government paternalism

Yet, as the trials against social media companies continue and country after country moves toward legislating what Silicon Valley’s billionaires have quietly practiced for years

don’t know how to effectively limit access/use parental controls as tech CEOs claim to do.

If the end user can arbitrarily sign code themselves that is bootable then it kind of defeats the purpose of secure boot.

They can & it doesn’t. They can change the platform key to become the platform owner & control the public keys they keep in the code signing databases. Secure Boot gives the platform owner control over authorized code signers of boot processes.

That’s true today, but there’s no guarantee it will be true in the future.

It’s in the specification.

The platform key establishes a trust relationship between the platform owner and the platform firmware. The platform owner enrolls the public half of the key (PKpub) into the platform firmware. The platform owner can later use the private half of the key (PKpriv) to change platform ownership or to enroll a Key Exchange Key. See “Enrolling The Platform Key” and “Clearing The Platform Key” for more information.

The platform owner clears the public half of the Platform Key (PKpub) by deleting the Platform Key variable using UEFI Runtime Service SetVariable(). The data buffer submitted to the SetVariable() must be signed with the current PKpriv - see Variable Services for details. The name and GUID of the Platform Key variable are specified in Globally Defined Variables. The platform key may also be cleared using a secure platform-specific method. When the platform key is cleared, the global variable SetupMode must also be updated to 1.

It’s a matter of clearing the platform key & enrolling your own platform key. I’ve done this before.

Typically, computers with Secure Boot let us clear the platform key from the boot menu. (You can choose to purchase only those that do.) Some computer vendors ship Secure Boot in setup mode or let the customer provide public keys to ship preloaded.

Secure Boot has always been for enabling the owner to enforce integrity of the boot process through cryptographic signatures. Linus Torvalds thought the feature makes sense.

Linus: I actually think secure boot makes a lot of sense. I think we should sign our modules. I think we should use the technology to do cryptographic signatures to add security; and at the same time inside the open source community this is so unpopular that people haven’t really worked on it.

It’s true that secure boot can be used for horribly, horribly bad things but using that as an argument against its existence at all is I think a bit naive and not necessarily right. Because if you do things right then it’s a really good thing. I would like my own machine to have the option to not boot any kernel, or boot loader, that is not signed by this signature.

Maybe read about the French revolutionary National Assembly & where political left came from?

Yes: crack open a history book.

Liberalism was the original leftism: see the French revolutionary National Assembly. It doesn’t intrinsically have anything to do with capitalism. In general, liberalism is neither left nor right. It promotes individualism. Historically, it progressed from humanism.

leftism begins at anti-capitalism

Not the political science definition.

General definitions & the historical development of liberalism are academic.

liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Some of the earliest liberal practices are found in the US Declaration of Independence, which predates the French revolution spreading the practice of liberal ideals throughout Europe. The US declaration pretty much rehashes core tenets of liberal philosophy

• inherent equality of individuals
• universal individual rights & liberties
• consent of the governed (governments exist for the people who have a right to change & replace them, & authority is legitimate only when it protects those liberties).

Note how capitalism isn’t mentioned anywhere: it’s nonessential. Capitalism predates & isn’t liberalism. Liberalism is moral & political philosophy, not an economic one.

The philosophy is a natural progression of humanist philosophies from the Renaissance through the Protestant Reformation & the Enlightenment that stress the importance of individuality, secular reasoning, & tolerance over dogma & subservience to unaccountable authority. To address unaccountable authority based on dogma & traditions, English & French philosophers defined legitimate authority based on humanist morality pretty much as expressed in the US declaration. They argued that political systems thrive better with limits & duties on authority & an adversarial system of institutional competition whether in separation of powers, adversarial law system with habeas corpus & right to jury trial, competitive elections, dialogue, or economic competition.

1700s

When the liberals were the leftists?

If we rely on the logic of the German approach, we wouldn’t be able to call the thing a thing until its too late. The point being made is that if you wait long enough to be able to a full historical analysis, you’ve effectively become an apologist for genocide on the basis of a lack of evidence.

Untrue: it’s a matter of accurate wording. “The evidence so far indicates they’re potentially…” or “For all we know, they could be…” gets the same idea across without violating integrity concerning degree of certainty or knowledge.

Providing material support to Israel is no different from providing material support to Nazi Germany

Technically & literally false: they are different. A lawyer can challenge the falsehood.

Providing material support to Israel is bad for the same reasons providing material support to any genocidal state including Nazi Germany is bad

Providing material support to Israel is providing material support to a genocidal state

Providing material support to Israel is as bad as providing material support to a feebler Nazi Germany

All technically correct or opinion.

Claiming shit is true before we have the evidence to justify it is invalid & another way to state you’re claiming shit you don’t actually know: you’re spouting shit. Spouting shit is fine in cool countries that respect liberty. However, Germany is not one of them. Spouting the wrong shit in Germany is legally risky: apparently, the law parses words with autistic literalism.

By punishing verbal laziness, the law doesn’t necessarily “support genocide”. It is coercing you to stop being a slob & express yourself with (annoying?) accuracy.

Cool non-answer. What part of civility rules typical across lemmy such as dbzer0’s own

Don’t be shitty. i.e. telling people to kill themselves, or bad-jacketing is bannable.

allows exceptions for unhinged promotion of violence against commenters whom we unreasonably allege or “bad-jacket” as Zionist? Uncivil denunciations of Zionism are uncivil; therefore, moderators enforcing civility must prosecute. No evidence was given the moderators penalize civil denunciations of Zionism. Enforcing civility doesn’t imply Zionism.

This is basic logic. Denying basic logic implies staggering stupidity or dishonesty.

he repeatedly used technicalities and weaseley language to refuse to admit it

see

Yet, Mosseri repeatedly said he was not an expert in addiction in response to Lanier’s questioning.

Even if a nonexpert claims something is clinical addiction, they’re a nonexpert & their word is meaningless. For a credible statement, they’ll need to admit relevant evidence instead of ask a nonexpert.

Imagine being asked for a medical diagnosis when you’re not a qualified physician. It’s perfectly fair to point out you’re not an expert on the matter & point out your awareness of distinctions between imprecise conventional language & precise, scientific definitions.

No one is obligated to volunteer dubious claims to antagonize themselves on the stand just because you want them to.

This is sensationalist BS and I dearly want this platform to be better than that.

This platform loves sensationalism. Same with other platforms.

An admin in their matrix room explains they lack access to revive it. It’d been intermittently going down for a while.