Fecesbook is crap. Crap take from a crappy data salesman with nothing but crap to sell. I can’t wait until it eats itself from all the bots.
Meta was already enabling genocide in third world countries and countless other things but this is what caused chaos. Weird priorities, huh?
Not sure why you’re being down voted, it’s a fair point.
In fairness, do we know for certain what happened in Facebook back then? Maybe some employees did protest, maybe they’re the same people protesting now, even. Or they quit. Thing is, LGBT issues make engaging articles. Third world suffering? Eh, it depends.
Yet, I agree with the overall point because this is the crux of the matter: on average, one of these simply matters more—one way or another, see transphobes cheering—for people of this subgroup. This is us.
The usual notes apply: good on them for protesting, big media isn’t helping, fully ethical employment is like fully ethical consumption.
The fact ur so heighly downvoted for saying this. Perfect example of weird priorities.
id say a good 80% of those downvotes are misunderstanding. something about the wording? idk. i thought they were talking about progressive folks getting outraged at first, not meta employees specifically. almost downvoted but caught my misunderstanding in time
Ah yes, the “old news theory”…
-They’ve done it already, why call them out again? It’s old news.
While they escalate and continue to go full-on hate for profit.
- They haven’t done “it” because it’s a different thing
- OP did not say not to call it out again, simply ask us to consider why this thing caused more chaos than others
i was with you at first but upon rethinking i do think it’s fair to note that there was little to no internal uproar in meta over the myanmar and othe situations. of course there was uproar outside meta. when they said “weird priorities” they meant from meta employees specifically—not progressive or leftist voices in general.
hope me describing my train of thoughts helps :)
Not like they’re a bunch of committed leftists working there.
Which is more likely to impact a Meta employee personally?
i think I’ve finally reached peak zuckerberg, i don’t want to read one more thing about facebook or meta or whatever
Same. Luckily you can add his name to the block list.
Good to know that there’s still some decent people there.
Anyone ‘decent’ there is a wage-slave that doesn’t have an out. If you can leave meta and don’t there’s no decency there.
If you have a problem with it, organize a Facebook union. The only way small voices matter to CEOs are when they speak collectively.
if they weren’t already organizing, I bet they are now. CWA has been receiving so many high quality leads for the last 2 years that they literally do not have enough dues-paying members to fund all of those campaigns. They’re one of the largest unions in the US already.
Can non members support CWA financially?
I was curious since I’d never considered that, I became a member the old fashioned way. It doesn’t look like you can donate directly, but CWA has a merch store full of reasonably priced, union-made clothing that you can buy to support them!
Meta employees suddenly discovering their conscience is a bit rich.
Still, it’s good to see there are people there who won’t just go along with anything.
feel free to be heroes and leak meta’s source code before leaving.
That’s a bit like emptying the sewer into the street
Ok there i go for the downvotes… Where are woke people there is always confusion about everything, if you dont think or do things like they do they start scream and protest all the time. Thats why they are getting behind, the majority of people (the silent ones) are tired of the constant whining
What is “woke” to you? Not using racist slurs?
Ok there i go for the downvotes… Where there are people with which I disagree there is always confusion about everything, if you dont think or do things like they do they start scream and protest all the time. Thats why they are getting behind, the majority of people (the silent ones; like us) are tired of the constant whining
… We are above the fray. It is the they’s and them’s causing all the problem and doing all the complaining. This post isn’t the exact whining I’m talking about I promise. We us’s are just doing the lord’s work and never complaining.
Oh shut the fuck up with your false piety
Uhhh… what are you on about?
Just you whining about doing gods work and being mad at they/thems for existing
False piety. Jesus definitely wouldn’t do your performative bullshit.
OMG! I got the impression people were missing what I thought was obvious, on the nose sarcasm. I was pointing out the initial whinging about “woke” people was hypocritical.
I caught it, but tensions are high in this thread (I get why), an /s would help a lot.
Sorry as a queer person I got no patience these days and your sarcasm was too on the nose for me to pick up
“Do things the way they do” like accept people’s right to exist and be themselves. You’re the ones enforcing things on people, your revulsion at seeing a black person isn’t equal to that person’s suffering under a racist system.
You entitled piece of shit.
What does “woke” mean, when you say it? It used to refer to awareness of the existence of institutional racism. Does “anti-woke” refer to a lack of awareness, or a lack of concern? Would you argue that that would be a good thing?
Pretty sure it’s the zios and other fash crying about having their lies revealed.
The word woke has been misused for so many years now its effectively meaningless other than meaning “dumb leftist”
Fuck we are a stupid species…
We certainly wish you were silent
You fuckers are anything but silent.
is me wanting to exist really too “woke” for you?
No, but if you work in a place and dont like the way the company is going, for personal or profissional reasons, just resign and go for another job, stop wasting everyone time and patient
if a company was allowing people to say they want YOU dead, you’d be pretty upset as well.
Just running away from discrimination and oppression doesn’t help. I value the well-being of humans WAY before I value your “time and patient”“value the well-being of humans” that is a subjective thing thats why there is this kind of conflits, just because you think you are defending the world with no cape that doesnt mean you are right and the contraditory is not true as well. What i mean is that they have different views and there are not a good or bad view, they are different, so no you cannot say that you are right and the other is wrong. Just move on
Silent? I fucking wish you idiots were silent.
That doesn’t happen to me. Maybe you’re just an asshole.
I love this ahahah <3
Why do I hear so much bitching about wokeness from the silent ones? If they want to call themselves the silent ones they should shut the fuck up. I might be interested if they had anything to say beyond the vague ‘we’re getting behind’ and ‘everything is confusing’ which gives heavy old-man-yells-at-cloud energy.
“Total Chaos” feels a bit overblown…
It’s probably accurate. Imagine cubicles and desks smoldering in a filthy, smokey heap, copy machines smashed through the windows, sparking electrical conduit dangling from the ceiling. It’s likely madness.
I wonder if even one chair has been overturned.
Dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!
You know what would be an effective ‘protest’? If employees started deleting important files…
Sorry, I can’t tell if you’re serious or not.
It’s extremely unlikely that facebook has in place a system that allows any lowly engineer to cause such damage alone. No hard drive hosting unique files no one else has, without backups, without security, and so on.
If you’re a billion dollar corp that depends on an important recipe to make your product, you’re not leaving the only copy of it on front desk with no oversight.
I don’t see how deleting files would work as a form of protest. Would probably get you in trouble, though.
Okay, so what are employees doing? The title says “employees protest”, by “protest” do they mean “complain but continue to follow orders”? Because that’s basically the norm for any job.
Don’t know. Article asks for sign-in, but much as I like 404’s reporting, I just don’t feel like creating one more account right now, so all I got is they’re unhappy and talking. Maybe they’re talking to people who can do something about it, maybe they’ll do more soon—organizing takes time, after all—or maybe they’ll do fuck all 'cause that’s what we usually do.
I don’t think 404 uses a password-based login if that makes a difference.
I personally just consume their crap via RSS like most other things I read.
Wait, isn’t their RSS feed only available to subscribers? If not, can you share the link?
I just put in the web address into my reader (Feeder).
Some articles are only for subscribers, but a lot of them are the whole thing.
Tell me you’ve never worked in a tech company without telling me…
Unionize tech and then it can happen.
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels … upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all
Well, yeah, if tech workers unionized, maybe they’d have some leverage. Let’s hope they get to that before the next absurd move from big tech? Fingers crossed, 143rd time’s the charm.
you have to introduce errors that are likely to not be spotted right away. Set variables that cause 1/1,000,000 errors on pages or that that move things around over time
I’m sure that meta doesn’t have backups so that makes this an effective form of protest
Now we’re doing headlines like this with tech companies in addition to politicians? These fuckers act with impunity because they can.
For some reason, it appears the unbreakable barrier for humanity is switching the fucking social media site you go to.
What would it take for people to consider not looking at Instagram and Facebook? A feed full of snuff videos?
the unbreakable barrier for humanity is switching the fucking social media site you go to.
Facebook is quickly becoming a retirement community, exclusively for me-maws and pepes. It hasn’t been the tool for college kids to organize keggers in nearly a decade.
But when alternatives to Facebook crop up - your Instagrams and TikToks and Discords and WhatsApps and Grindrs - they don’t last long before being gobbled up by the bigger social media giants or shut down by hostile state regulators.
In the end, everything returns to Facebook, because the big companies can borrow money for free and staple on whatever small firm is seeing a lot of early growth. I give BlueSky another three years, tops, before one of the big social media giants acquires it.
I agree, but we should at least have them fork over the cash to buy a new dumpster to enshittify every few years. There’s Twitter that people still cling to despite it being a superfund site since at least when Leon bought it.
Make Facebook the next MySpace, make Reddit the next Digg. Make social media sites starve to death from lack of engagement again.
pepes
You’re thinking of 4chan
Instagram and TikTok are already big social media giants in their own right.
If TikTok gets gobbled up, it’ll be because of the legal proceedings going on in which lawmakers are trying to force TikTok to allow itself to be bought up by some US company. Which is another issue altogether, cause if I start a business, the legality of the US government forcing me to sell my business to someone else, or even to be forced to sell my business to a foreign government or company and not be allowed to possess it, is a whole can of worms.
But outside of WhatsApp being shut down due to security reasons, the majority of those wouldn’t qualify as social media sites that would be gobbled up by some other social media giant.
Instagram is, uh, Meta? It was gobbled up just as it was taking off.
Tiktok couldn’t be gobbled, and is being beat down by legislators until they sell to US tech firms.
I stand corrected then. You can ignore all my bloviating.
bloviating
I love this word. TIL it.
I wish, they got rid of all the snuff sites long ago
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?
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?
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, but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?
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” but that is the concensus is it not?
Variant is probably a better choice than abnormality, if you’re asking genuinely, that is.
I’m not going to downvote you and assume this is a genuine question. You appear to be aware that calling someone “abnormal” would be considered insulting. If you support the idea that someone having different sexual preferences is their own business, why would you want to use these labels? If one person likes math and the other likes literature, would you call one or the other abnormal? We all deviate from the norm because there is no norm.
Why would abnormal be an insult?
I would consider myself abnormal, it isnt a negative or positive thing
Yes, this is exactly my point. For example, I have ADHD which has some downsides, but a lot of upsides that make me who I am. I’m also partially red-green colorblind. Both of these are abnormalities, and I don’t take that as a personal affront.
Now, apart from being the butt of a couple jokes, being colorblind has not been a major hardship for me, so from an emotional level it’s not the same as growing up ostracized for being gay. Perhaps that’s why I don’t perceive my abnormality to be something I would take offence to.
That’s really what I’m trying to get down to. Are we trying to say being LGBT is “normal” as in, every child being born has a very high, or just as average a chance of being born LGBT as heterosexual? Because I don’t think any facts support that. Or are we saying an LGBT child would be an abnormality that we as a society simply don’t care about because we don’t attribute large importance to sexual orientation.
This is where I feel that saying homosexuality is a mental abnormality is not actually incorrect, but our connotations of the world abnormal are still such that people attribute negativity towards it.
Other animals exhibit homosexuality, we’re the only species to exhibit homophobia. That should tell you all you need to know about which behavior is abnormal.
Right, but those other animals do not exhibit homosexuality in high numbers. It’s still a small subset as far as I know, making it an abnormality that those animals simply don’t care about.
This isn’t about homophobia, I’ve already stated that I’m pro LGBT, it’s about the meaning of words and understanding if a lot of the backlash is due to the perception of the words or the meaning of the words. I also agree that illness is a negative word that implies a correction is needed and I do not support it.
Consistently observed behavior in a population subset is not an abnormality.
Fair. It comes down to which definition of abnormal you jump to. Merriam Webster gives two possible definitons:
- deviating from the normal or average
- often : unusual in an unwelcome or problematic way
I always though of it as #1, but this whole thread has taught me that most others see it as #2, so it’s not the best word for me to use in this case.
Your argument has been used countless times in history for a number of “abnormalities” that turn out to just be differences without distinction.
“Listen, I’m a supporter of red-heads, but don’t we basically understand that it’s a genetic abnormality? Maybe ‘illness’ is a bit harsh, but they’re just not common enough in society to be considered normal.”
It’s a genetic superiority I’ll have you know, +30 resistance to anaesthetic.
It’s not an argument, I’m asking in good faith if my current viewpoint is correct. I’m reading your reworking of my words and I don’t actually see a problem with it. Abormality just means a difference with a much lower chance than normal. I think this actually proves what I’m trying to say because I don’t think anyone legitimately believes there’s anything wrong with people who have read hair.
Again it seems to be the word that’s chosen that causes a bad reaction. If I say being a redhead is a genetic deficiency then I’m implying it’s a bad or unwanted trait (which it is not) similar to the word “illness”. However if I say it’s a genetic abnormality, I don’t think that has any negative connotations because it is a difference, as you say, but one not seen as often as any other differences.
Again, I can’t prove to you that I’m approaching this in good faith, the downvotes seem to say most people above I’m not, but I am just trying to understand if it’s the words we’re using that people take offense to, or the actual meaning behind them is wrong.
The difference is being labeled “abnormal” by a person you know vs. by society. As a society, we used to beat children who used their left hand to write until they started acting “normal”.
The thought itself that left-handedness and right-handedness are different is not harmful. However, when you start labeling one as ‘normal’ and the other as a ‘generic abnormality’, you start shifting people’s perspectives and suddenly we get a situation where we call left-handed people “Sinister”. (The word literally means left-handed. We added the evil connotations afterwards because of the prejudice against left-handed people. We also did the same in reverse for “dexterity”.)
You might not see the harm immediately in the small scale, but it’s absolutely intended to be a step towards dehumanizing queer people. As others have said as well, homosexuality is incredibly common in nature. Most giraffe sex is gay sex. It’s just not taught in school because… say it with me… “It’s abnormal.”
It’s really not though. It’s just different, and different doesn’t mean bad.
I think we’re on the same page then, we just have different taste when it comes to using certain words. I can certainly appreciate your slippery slope point where anbnormalities can be twisted by society into being negative. That’s a very real thing and you have some good examples. I suppose I’m just disappointed that we as a society are choosing to step around words and not confront the elephant in the room that abnormal things happen all the time and they aren’t bad.
I wish we lived in a society where people aren’t always looking to paint people in a bad light, where we could speak factually and not take offense to everything. At the end of the day the more I try to explain myself in these comments it appears to be the definition of normal that I’m getting hung up on. When I think “normal” I’m thinking statistically average, this is a fairly probably outcome. Others are thinking of “normal” as in socially accepted, not a big deal.
I think homosexuality in humans is abnormal (statistically) and normal (socially). I’d never heard that most giraffe sex was gay though, so that’s interesting. Time to get lost in Wikipedia.
Here come the downvotes, which most seem to use based on whether they agree with something or not, rather than for signalling the quality of a comment. It fosters echo chambering rather than healthy discussion. I for one think that this is an excellent question and discussion.
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.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out comment. I’ll try to reply to it but honestly the amount of downvotes I’m getting for trying to understand something is a bit discouraging so I don’t think I’ll be keeping the conversation going much longer.
“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.
I’m making a pretty general statement so I don’t have numbers to back anything up, but I would be very surprised if we didn’t have basic statistics on how many people identify as gay, or are diagnosed with ADD, etc. So I think we do understand norms, but you’re right this always changes with increased research and study.
Grouping ADD, homosexuality and musical creativity together is also a bit of a stretch IMO.
I did this on purpose. I’m not saying any of these are similar at all, just that they’re attributes that might make us unique and as far as I’m aware (since I’m not religious) these are functions of brain chemestry. Somone who has a very creative mind can be encouraged through their upbringing and surroundings to use it for music, arts, etc but I do think think there is something physical in the brain there. I’m not a neuroscientist so I don’t know how much is attributed to genetics, hormones, etc.
(Illness) It’s commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.
I agree completely, which is why I say it’s not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies it’s something that needs to be corrected. I do see it as something that deviates from the norm, but in a way as harmless and inconsequential as left-handedness.
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.
This is the conclusion I came to in a seperate comment here. That I am coming at the word abnormal from the statisctical point of view, as in it deviates from a known norm. A lower percentage of it happening compared to other outcomes. Other people are using the word abnormal as a way of shunning “the other”, which is unfortunate.
I thought I had done a good enough job of establishing upfront what I meant when I said that I was pro LGBT and was coming at this from a point of trying to understand, but I the backlash clearly shows that was not enough. I find it frustrating having to tiptoe around topics like this and always try to explain myself because people are so quick to look for the bad, but I suppose that is the current world we live in. It’s a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I can’t exect strangers on the internet to know me or what I believe in.
“but that is the concensus is it not?” As far as i understand it, no, it is not.
I’ve done a lot of explaining myself, but I’m still not conviced my original assumption is incorrect. I still think that homosexuality has a biological/mental aspect because gay people say that they were born that way, it’s not a choice, it’s who they are. I didn’t choose to be straight so that makes perfect sense to me. I also know that the people who feel that way are in a minority, therefore something is happening mentally, biologically, I don’t know, to a small subset of people making them an abnormality.
What I HAVE learned is I need to be more cautious of using the word abnormal which goes full circle to my question on if this is an issue of language. Most people really don’t like words that black and white say they’re different, because while it may be true, it can be used by people who do not feel like deviations from the norm are acceptable, and they will attack them for being the “other”. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say they’re on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.
Anyway, that’s enough rambling from me. Thanks for the reply.
2/2
I agree completely, which is why I say it’s not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies it’s something that needs to be corrected. I do see it as something that deviates from the norm, but in a way as harmless and inconsequential as left-handedness.
And i don’t disagree (aside from the discussion on “norm” as stated above).
I thought I had done a good enough job of establishing upfront what I meant when I said that I was pro LGBT and was coming at this from a point of trying to understand, but I the backlash clearly shows that was not enough.
That’s not necessarily true, people are going to disagree and misunderstand especially on a subject such as this, all you can do is engage in good faith and work with the results of that.
If you want to refine your explanations, that’s fine also, but you aren’t going to get 100% success rates, especially on the internet.
I find it frustrating having to tiptoe around topics like this and always try to explain myself because people are so quick to look for the bad, but I suppose that is the current world we live in.
All we can do is our best, if that’s not enough for some people, so be it.
This kind of communication is a skill, it’ll get more refined over time.
It’s a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I can’t exect strangers on the internet to know me or what I believe in.
True, so manage your expectations accordingly.
If you go in to it with an understanding of the potential outcomes you won’t be blindsided.
I’ve done a lot of explaining myself, but I’m still not conviced my original assumption is incorrect. I still think that homosexuality has a biological/mental aspect because gay people say that they were born that way, it’s not a choice, it’s who they are. I didn’t choose to be straight so that makes perfect sense to me. I also know that the people who feel that way are in a minority, therefore something is happening mentally, biologically, I don’t know, to a small subset of people making them an abnormality.
The conversation about a potential biological/genetic component to homosexuality is incredibly charged for various reasons but mainly because of the consequences of either outcome.
If it turns out there is a genetic component then think of all the things the fundamentalist nutjobs would want to do with that information.
And given that fundamentalist nutjobs aren’t know for their clear headed and rational thinking they wouldn’t understand (or would wilfully ignore) that you probably can’t just point to a “gay gene” as a means of identification so not only would they being doing stupid shit, they’d be doing stupid shit that doesn’t make any sense.
What I HAVE learned is I need to be more cautious of using the word abnormal which goes full circle to my question on if this is an issue of language. Most people really don’t like words that black and white say they’re different, because while it may be true, it can be used by people who do not feel like deviations from the norm are acceptable, and they will attack them for being the “other”. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say they’re on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.
I think it’s more complicated than just language, though language is a major component on the internet.
There are sometimes ways to present the same information in a similar way that makes use of linguistic and societal context to convey the meaning of what you were saying while downplaying some of the the negative aspects of how it could be received.
I suspect an issue you might be having is that at a glance they’d probably both look the same to you, so with a choice between four words and two sentences the more concise seems like the better option.
Though i might be projecting.
I don’t actually think that’s the issue here however, i agree it’s just a charged subject and people are people.
If a requirement to mental abnormality is that its unnatural, wouldnt that also exclude most mental illnesses?
I don’t think understand what you are asking, would you mind adding a bit more detail please ?
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.
If the answer to the question “is homosexuality a mental abnormality” depends on if you consider homosexuality natural, that would mean that being unnatural is a condition of a mental abnormality, which, since people are born with mental illnesses and not resulted from human activity, would also exclude mental illnesses
Am i misunderstanding something?
I think community notes is a better form of moderation. And focusing on stopping the more extreme bad shit instead of thought crimes seems like a good thing too.
For all the crap on X, the Community Notes I’ve seen have been actually kinda good. Not that I’ve seen a lot, because algorithmically sorted public microblogging is still discursive cancer with ideological hepatitis that I mostly try to avoid.
who is talking about thought crime? spreading fake news can be dangerous in a way that results in actual deaths.
“In modern usage, the term “thought crime” is often used metaphorically to describe situations where individuals are penalised or ostracised for holding unapproved or unpopular opinions, or for expressing dissenting views.” - dr gpt
Seems to fit pretry perfectly
In the context of trans people, anti trans rhetoric goes away beyond “unapproved” or “unpopular” though. It’s straight up non-factual pseudoscience at best. A lot of it is straight up lies and libel/slander. It does real, lasting harm. That’s not “thought crime” as you describe.
That exactly fits my definition. My definition says nothing about outcomes or if its true or not my definition is simply about expressing an opinion and you disliking it is proving me right.
Indeed, the whole point of my comment is that your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not. Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.
I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.
your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not.
My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.
Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.
Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less. And u taking offence is your choice and yoyr problem.
I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.
I wasnt aware that anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid, thanks for enlightening me. Seems kinda self centred to me but i would be stupid to disagree with on that point.
My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.
Only because The Party has no regard for the truth. If, in 1984, The Party were concerned with truth at all then thought crime would also be concerned with the truth. This is because the real definition of thought crime in the context of that story is any thought that isn’t approved by The Party.
But you’ve brought the phrase “thought crime” out if that context and into the real world. Here, truth matters.
Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less
Completely untrue, and very disturbing that you’d think otherwise.
anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid
That’s not why you’re stupid, it has nothing to do with me.
thats different from fake news, still
Please define “fake news” and dont say news that isnt true because then u have to decide who chooses what is objective reality.
When a judge decides to convict someone of murder, we all know they might be wrong. The judge is not entitled to decide what objective reality is, he just decides how the judiciary system sees and treats the situation, as someone has to do it.
The same thing should be applied to fake news, which is sharing (dis)information with the false appearance of some verified news piece to influence people into making certain decisions.
Of course, there’s a big potential for censorship in how we treat fake news. So this treatment should follow clear objective criteria and be absolutely transparent.
I see ur point but just kinda sounds like censorship with extra steps. For example we have seen the american courts are racist, sexist, classist, unfair cesspools, its nessasary evil to maibtain civil order but i dont want those same standards applied to speach.
Also from a philosophical point of view free speach and the marketplace of ideas is the fundamental building block upon which democraticy itself is build.
Etc etc insert George Orwell quote here
transparency is precisely what can make regulations not be censorship, or I should hope so.
Its amazing how quickly these assholes have dropped any sort of facade they were keeping up towards their public image. At best they are doing whatever they think will get them the most money, more realistically they actually support this regressive bullshit. As a non-American I am so pissed at what a good portion of that country has voted for and those that stayed home instead of preventing this.
That’s not at all amazing. What’s amazing is that a large number of people thought it was a great idea to hand over the power to decide what’s true or not to private companies. When they rolled out this “content moderation” used mostly against Trump the political left was beside itself with joy. I remember the taunts of “haha it’s a private company, they can publish whatever they want.” So incredibly stupid and short sighted.
I mean, I feel thats still true. And because it’s true, we need to get the f off of it, as a society.
The “it’s a private company lolz” thing was itself a reaction to when Republicans were refusing to make gay wedding cakes, and the loss of the Fairness Doctrine long before that.
I think “thought it was a great idea to hand over the power […] to private companies” is a misrepresentation. Some moderation was better than no moderation, but obviously "the political left"would have preferred regulation rather than self regulation.
What’s the point you’re making? That nothing should have been done?
That this was worse than nothing. Time after time we fall for the old “we’ll self-regulate trust us” and all it did was delay actual action being taken while a Democrat was in charge, and now we’re stuck for at least 4 more years. It was already godawful 4 years ago, 4 years from now the state of public discourse may be beyond repair.
I see your point now and agree
The oligarchs have paid their tithe to king Trump and feel like they are immune to consequences. So far they have been correct.
LOL welcome to corporate America. The only reason they paid lip service to causes like you mention is because it was temporarily a pathway to more profit. Now that Trump is in office (or nearly so, anyway) they have read the room and realized these beliefs are actually a liability now. So, surprise! They dropped em like a rock in the pursuit of more profits. Never never never trust a corporation to do the right thing. They sometimes accidentally do it in the pursuit of profits, but tying your hopes and dreams to a large corporation is a foolish plan. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU THEY CARE ABOUT THE MONEY IN YOUR WALLET.
Yeah, it is absolutely crazy how much the tide has shifted with trump’s reelection. These so-called “woke” companies (it was always performative, but they performed for the more just side) have all turned 180 and dropped to their knees to kiss the ring.
And this is because of the very real feeling that trump will abuse his power and unconstitutionally stay in office. The guardrails seem to have come down, and these fuckers are rushing to get on the fascist’s good side.
That should alarm everyone, so I’ll say it again: these companies are positioning themselves on the side of fascism because they don’t think we can stop them anymore. They are making business decisions that bolster fascists because there’s a fuckin dollar in it.
With the power of these fucking megacorps behind the fascist movement, it’s like sticking a rocket engine on its ass.
The guardrails seem to have come down
They don’t seem to, they definitely have. Remember that Supreme Court ruling that said the president can break the law?
Something something 1930’s Germany.
Supposing your team had won, these people would go back to only paying lip service. Better, no doubt, but not a solution. How long did fascists and racists and misogynists lay dormant in US culture before seizing control now?
You need cleansing and systemic change. People need to internalize “no one is free until everyone is free.” Fascists and ethno-nationalists need to be afraid and culturally eliminated over generations.
Fascism is enabled by liberalism, and its capitalist ideology, and it’s promoted by capitalists when capital is threatened. Capitalism is the underlying force here, and capitalists are behaving in exactly the same way they’ve done at similar points in history and as described and predicted by leftists.
Yes Democrats losing the vote sucks and we’re all paying for it, globally, but their win would have been a delay at best. That doesn’t mean winning votes isn’t important, but it means that it can’t be your one and only political action once every 4 years. It’s time to get serious.
LMAO, employees are about to find out why a union would be a good idea. Gotta speedrun growing class consciousness.
Removed by mod
