You Are Not So Smart -
Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You're Deluding Yourself
|
Thursday, 8 February 2018
quote [ Reddit follows several other platforms that have already banned deepfakes pornography. That includes Gfycat, Discord, and recently Pornhub, which said that deepfakes imagery counted as nonconsensual pornography. ]
Followup to this post. This ruling applies not only to video, but also GIFs and even still images. The subreddit for photoshopping celebrities which has existed for seven years and had some 50,000+ subscribers was banned today without warning.
|
Taxman said @ 4:03am GMT on 9th February
The petty fascists here don't take the time to back up their feels with anything of substance.
With all due respect, I think they're just tired of your shit. You call them moral arbiters, fascists, and make comments that generally include a jab at their beliefs with no backing (socialists want to redistribute the wealth FOR NO GOOD REASON!). If you (and fish and numbers) removed the biting sarcasm and disdain from many of your arguments, you could have a robust back and forth. However, you don't seem to be coming forward in good faith. You want to say what you want to say, and then you'll 'put up with' their "pathetic" "socialist" response. I'm not saying you can't THINK it. Just don't say it. It undermines the good faith I was talking about.
7 was right on the money with many of his observations about how the new self appointed moral arbiters are coming from the Left.
When changing anything, one can always ask "Who the hell do you think you are to tell US how to run things? Things were FINE before you showed up!"". As if somehow being the first to the table means the rules you've been using to run the game are fair, balanced, or in any way perfect for the society that exists NOW. Moral arbiters are constantly needed because we as a species haven't figured out all the morals yet. We can't; it is kind of the point of a perpetual society. We were fine with slavery at one point until we weren't. It took moral arbiters constantly calling your ancestors racist until you and the arbiters died (and their children going "Oh maybe we should stop being cunts") for things to change. Then this really obscure guy, MLK Jr. came along as a moral arbiter saying CRAZY things like maybe black people are equal to white people or something. People, like yourself, called him a socialist, and a troublemaker, and that he was meddling in society to change everyone to his worldview. Fuckin' arbiters man. Who do they think they are, trying to change society for the better? We already know what's better!
Yea, I'm a little perplexed about how he got the support of the religious right.
steele, I call this progress.
I think it comes down to the lesser of two evils.
"A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option."
Lose. I know you won't/can't get your side to do this. However, the moral option is to lose because you don't have a candidate worthy of the office. Don't bring up the other side's candidate (I know it's in your head). Your candidate is unfit to the level of dangerous. If you would kill us all to not have a candidate you don't 'like' over one that is dangerous, you're violating that good faith mentioned above.
The Left and what they represent are a greater threat to their values than a flawed individual. The Left; that's what they are all about... meddling in society and lives towards their worldview.
They are, at least, trying (as opposed to your zero sum, burn the world as opposed to the other side winning argument). Action in this world brings about a reaction. What you call meddling, the Civil Rights movement would call progression. I know you don't agree, but change hurts, and is for the best.
I do have that audacity. Because I do not believe the Left has principles.
A genetic logical fallacy neglects the contents of an actual argument in favor of attacking where it came from. Genetic attacks are illogical because of the myriad times when a "terrible" person or "organization", despite being "awful", still said something true.
I'd challenge a Leftist to name one of theirs and defend it. Without that, you cannot have morality.
All men are created equal and they deserve the right to life. Leftist ideal. Rightist counter: You believe lazy people (outright refuse to work) are worth less than a (willing to) working individual. In fact, if a lazy person were to be allowed to die, it was kind of their fault.
What does this law enforcement example have to do with anything?
Law enforcement gets a lot of flak about having to be "above" it all as if they aren't human. Not going to get into the politics of it. If you didn't get it, then just forget it.
My "people" would vote for a rock... simply because the rock would be incapable of expanding government and forceably redistributing wealth because... well, it's just a rock.
Expanding government has been happening since the dawn of time. We lived in caves, then in packs, then we started farms, etc... We all have to live together and government is a way to (attempt) to be fair. Somewhere along the way you looked around said, OK STOP!, I'm good here. I'm a white male and I got what I need. The government is expanding because we as a society are expanding. The government being made up of THE SAME PEOPLE YOU ARE means that you need to accept that you are not going to end up with 140% like you may be used to. It will probably be 110% - 98% of what you are used to. I am terribly sorry for your loss.
Taxman said @ 4:03am GMT on 9th February
.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
Taxman said @ 4:03am GMT on 9th February
.
