Starfield is fine. It actually runs pretty smoothly, just not at 4k 120fps. A lot of AAA games these days require a DLSS-like solution to run well, which is kind of frustrating but we are already a few years into the roll out and its only a matter of time before it is ubiquitous. There is also a problem with tech IP lockout: Bethesda made a deal with AMD where they would support AMDs Super Resolution tech, the terms of which required them to not officially support NVidia DLSS. There are however Mods you can install to support DLSS.
An interesting sidebar there is that allegedly, a popular community modder was given advanced access to the game, allegedly so that DLSS support would be available near launch.
Anyway idk man, all these issues are manageable. Its janky but its fun jank.
I think you conveniently stopped reading before point 3.
> The government does, in fact, have the power to regulate some speech. When the rights and liberties of others are in serious jeopardy, speakers who provoke others into violence, wrongfully and recklessly injure reputations or incite others to engage in illegal activity may be silenced or punished.
The twitter files only showed that the government lobbied for changes, and that Twitter agreed to some changes. There is also evidence in those files that Twitter also refused some requests. we can hem and haw about the validity of the requests all day but I want to ask this: If you were a big enough media site that you become a potential public safety/national security risk (something like 90+M American users), what do you propose you should do when the government takes notice and starts contacting you?
Do you think Twitter should have just ignored all emails from the government about public safety threats? Do you think they should have had a policy of just throwing government correspondence in the big ole customer service heap and handled national security and public safety issues in 10-12 business days? when government agencies contact you about potential threats/issues would you take them seriously or laugh in their face? Did these government actors threaten Twitter with legal action or just request action be taken about certain content?
I don't want to be in the position of defending the FBI or a big corporation here, but I think if you have concerns about the conduct of Twitter or government here, the 1st amendment can't be your legal foundation here. You need to 1) contact your representatives about reducing FBI/DHS overreach and potentially restructure their responsibilities and funding. If you have an issue with the FBI we can do something about it together other than yelling about liberal bias at Twitter 2) actually have meaningful conversations about how you think social media should handle things like misinformation, extremism, and hatespeech. Because 0 moderation is not the answer and will never create healthy communities. And 3) think critically about what avenues government can and should use to make requests when it comes to issues of public health. Government is always going to want to keep tabs on what goes on in public forums and have concerns and it's the platforms decision as to whether or not to heed advice. I agree that we should be concerned about any legal threats are attached to requests, but I dont think you'll ever stop government from contacting major platforms that have a major affect on their constituents altogether.
Everyone here has provided some good advice about looking for what you are missing. In any part of your life, if your conclusion is "everyone here sucks but me": you are probably missing something. Understand that your equation of "more story points faster = better" is a philosophical decision you are making, that your team does not agree with. Your team may not capture all of their work on a jira board or may scale their tasks differently than you. You may value fast completion of tasks, and they may value slow but intentional design and testing. No one's value can be completely captured "on paper".
Also just chill out about perceived relative effort! If deadlines slip, if bad code is being shipped, then you should be concerned about your coworkers effort. If your team is meeting deadlines, then it is managements responsibility to fill the work queue, if you want more work ask for it. Your job isn't to manage your coworkers who all have their own lives and relationships to the work. If you are worried that you are doing more work for less money, do less work or ask for a raise.
I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics.
Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of trans people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these woke libs trying to cancel us are the real n@zis". It's exhausting. Infuriating.
Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.
"Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence"
Legislation in the US has actually made trans people vanish or are we using large amounts of hyperbole?
People have been saying mean things about other groups for millennia, as long as its just words, its fine. I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they want to come at me with physical violence then that's something else. I'll respond in kind. I don't see many jews running around screaming that speech is violence, we just get on with it. Same for black people dealing with those same white supremacists.
"don't let words affect you".
Exactly! I am all for us as adults just not letting the words of people we will never meet affect us. I've sat down and had beers with open anti Semites and people with swastika tattoos while being very open about being a jew. Its fine, I had a good talk with them, nobody changed anyone's mind but we parted on good terms. I hope they find happiness. I in no way want them prosecuted for their beliefs or speech.
Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal. And its primarily M2F trans people (in my experience), I don't really see F2M people doing it. I wonder if there is something related to the giving up of male physical strength that leads to demanding that society now protect you in all ways including your feelings. You're trans, cool, get on with it. Stop asking for special treatment.
> I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they want to come at me with physical violence then that's something else. I'll respond in kind
You're acting as though the likely outcome of neo-nazi groups is some skinhead trying to fight you. What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue.
>Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal.
This is simply nonsense. Pretty much every group in the country has a contingent that wants speech against them regulated
There are always consequences to freedom of ideas. Some good, some bad. The suppression of speech and ideas leads to a dictatorship. I think people that attack others verbally for who or what they are are bad people. I just think that the consequences of suppression of speech are worse. It's all good when the leaders we like are in power and stifle the speech of those we disagree with. It's not so fun when the pendulum swings and those we disagree with have that power.
"What actually happens is neo-nazi groups radicalize angry young men who then go out a gun down a whole bunch of people at a synagogue."
Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban? The only way to eliminate violence based on ideals is to eliminate free will. 1984 here we come.
>The suppression of speech and ideas leads to a dictatorship.
That's not true. Nazi ideology is banned in Germany, and they are a far healthier democracy than the United States.
> I just think that the consequences of suppression of speech are worse.
So if a group of people were plotting to kill you, you'd only want the State (i.e. the police) to step in after they had gone through with their plot?
> Sometimes. Are you willing to ban Islam since so often it's ideals are corrupted and lead to groups like Isis or the Taliban?
You're making up things that I 'believe'. I don't personally think that nazi ideology should be banned.
I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense. The end result of these hate ideologies is mass shootings and terrorism, not street fights you can be prepared for or defend yourself against.
"So if a group of people were plotting to kill you, you'd only want the State (i.e. the police) to step in after they had gone through with their plot?" That's already a crime friend. Conspiracy. I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder.
"I was merely pointing out that your fantasy of 'responding in kind' is nonsense". Cool, I still support near absolute free speech.
Nazis are banned in Germany as a result of WW2 and was part of their rehabilitation. Who do we give the power of deciding what speech is banned in modern day America? Biden? Trump? Desantis? Elizabeth Warren? The supreme court? I agree Nazis are bad, I just don't think anyone in the United States should have the power to ban ideas.
Yes it is, because the State decided to censor and restrict 'free speech' in that case.
>I think you are smart enough to understand the difference between free speech and plotting a murder.
Sure, I'm very open to my belief we should censor and punish some speech. I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction.
>Who do we give the power of deciding what speech is banned in modern day America?
That power already resides with Congress and then hypothetically the Supreme Court. Functioning democracies can have conversations and then decide when, where, and how to restrict speech. We've been doing that for 250 years.
>I just don't think anyone in the United States should have the power to ban ideas.
We've already established that you think the government can and should restrict ideas. 'Free speech absolutist' are rarely actually absolutist.
Never claimed to be an absolutist. In other posts I specifically say: "My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence." There are likely other crime related caveats. Now with that said I am not advocating for freedom from social consequences just preventing the state from using its lock on violence to implement those consequences.
"I just wanted to establish that you do support censorship and you do believe that sometimes saying 'don't let those words affect you' isn't an appropriate reaction." I do think its an appropriate reaction. Again large difference between saying something mean about a group of people and calling for their murder. I think anti-trans people are bad, just like I think the same of anti anything people. I just think banning speech is worse.
I support government restricted speech in the context of preventing physical harm, that's pretty much it. You are right that congress creates the laws but in most cases the supreme court is going to prevent things that are overruled by the 1st. As it should be.
My main point is that saying speech is violence makes no sense. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives. We spend 99% of our time worrying about things that in reality have no effect on our lives. If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares? Stop worrying about pointless nonsense.
You're whole premise is that the government shouldn't regulate speech, as it "leads to dictatorship"
>In other posts I specifically say: "My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence."
That's fine if that's what you believe. 'Believable threats of violence' is a completely ambiguous and meaningless term in regards to actual regulation and laws.
>e. People should stop letting anonymous figures on the internet rile them up and affect them and just get on with their lives.
The focus is on people who have their loved ones massacred because of people who were riled up online.
>If JewHater99@twitter thinks jews control the media, who cares?
Well, the family members of the people JewHater99 ends up massacring might.
hmmm, your entire argument appears to be overly focused and convinced on the supposed fact that everyone that holds negative views of a race or people becomes a mass murderer. That's very much not the case. If if was, there wouldn't be very many people left at all. 99.999999% of the time JewHater99 is just going to go about living a normal life and continue posting anonymously on the web.
>hmmm, your entire argument appears to be overly focused and convinced on the supposed fact that everyone that holds negative views of a race or people becomes a mass murderer. That's very much not the case
That's not what I've said and you know it. It really seems like you don't actually understand the position you think youre arguing against.
> Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal.
this in an incredibly disingenuous take. Who is trying to make saying antitrans things should be illegal? last i checked trans people were still trying to access affirming medical care and not be attacked in the streets. If you are referring to like pronouns/names, I still think you are being disingenuous. I think right to self determination is a meaningful thing to fight for, you can argue that one persons request to be called by their chosen name impedes on your speech but i think you're wrong.
> I don't really see F2M people doing it
This is actually a really interesting phenomena! It does have to do with existing double standards in how society treats men and women. The fact is a lot of trans men either have an easier time passing bc masculine aesthetics are easier to adopt or they are dismissed because they aren't seen as a threat by people who think a penis is the thing that makes you dangerous. Of course trans men have their own battles but they largely aren't being branded as a sex offender for existing in the way that trans women are. Also they absolutely are fighting for the same rights, it may seem quieter because the popular culture war talking point is specifically about drag queens. I don't think the media has figured out how to villainize trans men.
> Stop asking for special treatment.
Every minority group fighting for their rights has been told this
"Who is trying to make saying antitrans things should be illegal?"
Come on, did you read the post I was responding to? My post was a response to another post. Op appeared to want it to be made illegal. Calling speech violence
implies that certain speech should be illegal as inflicting violence on others is illegal.
"Every minority group fighting for their rights has been told this"
The recent movement against trans is wholly due to the movements attempt to bring kids into it. Keep it out of schools and respect parental rights and I guarantee the focus on this goes away.
The only reason the focus is on drag queens is because kids are being taken to highly sexualized shows. Stop doing that and no one cares about drag queens anymore.
I wrote that comment and I don't want to make speech illegal I want acknowledgement that speech can be harmful and allow communities to self moderate if they are threatened.
> The recent movement against trans is wholly due to the movements attempt to bring kids into it
Frankly this is a lie. The root of your issue with trans people is that you think they are gross. It's circular logic to say that trans adults shouldn't exist because it will encourage my kid to grow up to be a trans adult. It's like saying that you don't want to live around Atheists because you want your kid to be Christian, fine enough but you can't stop people from being a thing you don't like, and your ability to stop your child from being it probably wanes earlier than you'd like.
> Stop doing that and no one cares about drag queens anymore.
no yall will find another reason to demonize trans people because you actually don't care about safety you care about your delicate sensibilities. It's a witch hunt and drag shows are the current "spell"
Where is the line with where one persons existence affects children? Sure your libsoftiktok "citation" is an example of an entertainer being too lewd for the audience but in no way does an entire demographic need to take the fall for a cherry-picked example of lewdness. Also who gets to decide what is too lewd? Do you want to give the government that power? Should it be illegal to show your kid an R rated movie? Is it the parents responsibility or the production team of the movie? Or are movies and movie likers at large to blame? Is a trans person going to the grocery store a danger to your kids? Is telling kids that trans people exist a danger? Where is the line between telling kids that its ok that some people in the world are trans and turning kids trans?
IDK Maybe we should also not tell our kids anything about "traditional" gender norms lest we anger any indignant parents who might agree/disagree that girls should have aspirations beyond motherhood.
"The root of your issue with trans people is that you think they are gross"
What? I have no issues with trans people at all as long as they just live their lives like everyone else and stop attempting to enforce trans education in schools, unfairly compete in women's sports and not perform lewd acts in front of kids. Other than that I wish them nothing but happiness. Trans people should be able to do whatever they want in normal polite society. The backlash that the trans community has started over parents just saying please don't be sexual around my kids is crazy. Or please don't tell my kids in school that maybe they may be the wrong gender. Or schools please don't lie to parents if our kids express gender confusion. How are these outrageous requests? It very much seems that a portion of the trans community wants special treatment above and beyond the general population.
Trans people largely dont want to be "sexual" around children. The problem is that you are conflating a performance art (drag) with an entire demographic of people (trans people). Do you actually think trans people are sexually assaulting kids or do you just perceive them existing in society as an assault? Why are trans topics in education bad if they describe the lived experience of your neighbors? I don't genuinely believe you would leave trans people alone, if they gave up any ground. you just want them to shut up and get out of sight so they don't legitimize a lifestyle that you disprove of.
> as long as they just live their lives like everyone else
The way you live your life and your opinions around what to teach kids about gender are a cultural choice. You make the active decision every day to teach kids that boys cant wear dresses, or that girls and boys need to be separated in sports. You can justify those beliefs all you want but at the end of the day, you are saying that your perspective is right and that trans people are wrong. So no you are not asking them to "live their life like I do" because you don't want them to advertise a lifestyle different from yours
I've never done anything negative to a trans person in my life so not sure what you mean by I won't leave them alone. Unless you think having a calm conversation and exchange of ideas on HN is harassment.
As far as "The way you live your life and your opinions around what to teach kids about gender are a cultural choice." Yup, and as a parent I make choices for my kids every day based on what I think is right for their success and happiness. I don't wish trans people ill at all indeed I wish them good lives but I very much don't want my kids to be trans as it's a much harder life. For a variety of reasons. Plus I want my boys to be boys. That's my preference. But I'm not looking to make that choice for any adult. Adult being the key word.
As soon as the trans community says yes sexual drag shows for kids is wrong and schools lying to parents is wrong and discussing sexuality in school is wrong then I'm all good.
there isnt like a trans spokesperson. Individual trans people arent responsible for every bad event you attribute to them. I'm sure trans people will agree with you on isolated cases but others might reject bad-faith characterizations of drag overall. Also i don't know what you mean about "lying to parents".
> I very much don't want my kids to be trans as it's a much harder life.
How cowardly. Why do you think its a harder life? Might it be because trans people are hated by society? Might that be because people continue to perpetuate myths that they are corrupting education?
> That's my preference
then dont teach my kids that there is only one way to live your life. Do you also want your kids to reach 18 and be surprised by the existence of trans people when they finally leave your shelter? How do you think they'll react after being taught that "boys should be boys"?
"How cowardly"
Alright, I think we have reached a point in the conversation where you are too emotionally compromised to continue and hurling insults instead of having a calm conversation. I wish you all the best
> by people who think a penis is the thing that makes you dangerous
It is the means by which a man can forcibly impregnate a woman. This is a very real risk to women, and is one reason why so many women are deeply uncomfortable with males imposing themselves in spaces where women are vulnerable, like bathrooms and locker rooms.
our current system does not prevent sexual assault from occurring in public restrooms, men can enter restrooms and assault someone if they really want to and sexual predators arent transitioning to get more access to women. Trans women also experience a high proportion of sexual/physical assault from men, should they be asked to enter a potentially dangerous situation? Is 1 trans woman a threat to a bathroom with 3 cis women in it? Or are 3 cis men in a bathroom a threat to 1 trans woman?
Any enforcement of bathroom norms sounds more dystopian than this fiction of rampant trans sexual assault. Do you want genital checks at the bathroom door? Maybe you want to have a security detail watching people piss. Do you want trans people to be reported to the authorities for using an enclosed stall alone?
This is a very shortsighted, historically-ignorant take that singles out M2F trans folks disingenuously - there have been plenty of calls from all over society, from cis women to trans women to trans men to gay folks to straight folks to any and all racial groups.
No, let’s just ignore all the times this has happened in history and all the times other groups had raised similar points (their possible merits aside), pretend this is a new problem, and blame MTF folks for it.
Surely you would feel very differently if you were born in a slightly different time in the not-so-distant past. How do you imagine the first "actual Nazis" came to the position of power where they could slaughter thousands of your community with impunity for nearly a generation? How do you imagine it couldn't happen again, if not in your lifetime, at some point in humanity's timeline? If not regarding Jews, regarding some new community?
Do you really think it would be avoided simply by more people taking "don't let words affect you" to heart [ * ]?
[ * ] (assuming, quite unreasonably, that that's actually something that could happen at a societal level)
Don't call me Shirley. Sorry I had too. There is a very large difference between random people doing it and the actual government the possesors of state sanctioned violence stirring people against you and I think you know that. On top of that, we live in the now in the United States. Freedom of speech is a very real thing that I very strongly believe should be close to absolute. Otherwise who gets to choose what is forbidden speech? Probably would not have liked it if Trump could decide what people are allowed to say.
> Do you really think it would be avoided simply by more people taking "don't let words affect you" to heart [ * ]?
Yes because the Nazis were butthurt bitches and used their perceived victimisation as an excuse to met out horrible torture, violence and dehumanisation.
Hitler tried to have a guy in Italy bought to heel for making his dog do a Nazi salute FFS.
> it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
No, it's about making sure people can spew a continuous stream of whatever hateful crap they feel like day in and day out every day for their whole life. One of the big reasons I'm a fan of things like universal income/healthcare is because currently employment is too critical to surviving which forces people to censor their speech. Hopefully the social safety net can improve to the point where someone can be almost comically offensive every day without fear of starving.
> If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices
> Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment
It is very odd to assert that the morality of speech is completely, correctly, and undeniably established in a document written 250 years ago that defines the laws of only one country.
It derives from philosophical thought and justification that rests on the idea that all men are created equal and that no one man is above another because of where or how they were born and that all men should be allowed to operate freely so long as they do not cause harm to others.
I do not agree with the OP's apparent presupposition that age somehow invalidates truth (without even giving us so much as an alternative and a basis for accepting it). However, the law is incomprehensible without morality. What on earth could you possibly take the law to be in the absence of morality? The natural law is the basis of morality and morality is the basis of law which is the particular and concrete determination of it in especially in matters concerning the common good. Yes, there is such a thing as immoral speech. Slander is an obvious example. Lies. But what should be subject to the law? That is a prudential question. And the 1st amendment is interpreted to some extent according to more or less prudential considerations.
The 1st amendment defines the law. It doesn't deal with morality because what is moral changes from generation to generation or from one party in power to the next. Its for this reason that the 1st amendment is so important. Morality changes all the time, the freedom to speak your mind on any topic should not.
Just because a document is written 250 years ago doesn't make it a 'bad' document.
Why the fuck do I care what the laws in Australia are when I don't live in Australia. you should see how govts interpret the "morality" or "offending" clauses in nation-states like India and Egypt to give themselves more power and arrest dissidents.
> Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence...
Granted that there is an overreaction happening but that seems largely in response to a rather hostile approach from that community. “If you deadname me I’ll have you banned”. “If you refuse to use my pronouns I’ll have you fired.” “If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you”.
This is no way to solve problems in a free society. Let’s trans people be trans. And let people who think there are only two genders think that. Forcing a set of beliefs or values on people is exactly what we should be trying to avoid.
>If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you
is my drag not free speech too? If one insults me (or says something to me I consider insulting), I should be allowed to insult them right back, right?
Yes. I’m just pointing out that what I see as the backlash against trans (which is often unhinged) is simply a response to trans activism, which is likewise unhinged. And that, suppressing the speech of either of those groups is a bad idea.
>If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech",
Not in the United States.
Matal v Tam
>>Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate."
----
remember, at one point it was considered 'harmful' be a majority whites for us browns/blacks to express our civil rights. Just because a majority goes "this is bad" doesn't mean it necessarily is.
It doesn't matter if words affect you. Threats are illegal, go ahead and prosecute. Disrespect is and should be legally protected. Government cannot, will not, and should not be in the position of making people like or be nice to you. People should be nice to each other but it is not the government's job to enforce this.
Nobody's rights extend to government banning speech that isn't supportive. No speech suppresses anybody else's.
Free speech isn't about "free speech for people who say things I support".
I'm tired of authoritarians pretending to be liberal.
>I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do
Why?
>Some speech suppresses the speech of others.
No speech can ever suppress that of others, except in the literal sense of talking over someone.
>it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
So, how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy? How do you feel about those who post on Reddit or Facebook that they are playing it? How do you feel about game reviewers publishing evaluations?
>and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit
why are you compelled to respond to me? why do you listen to anyone? why speak at all?
> No speech can ever suppress that of others
Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat. Or if you want a more subtle example, try talking to a minority group about microaggressions and what situations they feel safe to speak freely in. If you are in a minority group but don't feel oppressed in that way, I'm sure you have a peer who does.
> how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy?
Truly a nonsequitor but since you asked nicely:
the developers were paid to do a job, no shame in that. JKR is a bigot who filled that world with inescapable racism and the design lead ran a youtube channel that pushed some bigotted views about feminism and "sjws". Im too exhausted to care who plays it although personally think its easier on the conscience to not. Reviews are fine, but if you wanna talk about separating art and artist and media crit's place in that, its a long nuanced discussion
I think that's my main frustration. No discussion of free speech is ever allowed to be nuanced. Disagreeing with Free Speech absolutism is impossible to argue with because to say that "sometimes bigotry should be discouraged" is seen as an affront to the idea of speech itself.
Where was the violence in that response? It is merely preparation for threatened violence. Any violence must be done in response to only violence, especially if you want to stay out of jail.
There is a strange hypocrisy to your post. In my experience, I have seen respectful and compassionate critics of the very notion of transgenderism shouted down, ridiculed, attacked verbally, and so on merely for asking questions or pointing out what they see as problems or presuppositions they believe are incoherent. It is as if they are expected to shut up and accept without question the position you hold. Is that what you are proposing? Are you claiming that gender theory is beyond question? Do you require everyone to agree with its claims and play along?
> Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table
Would you agree to having blatantly, but shall we say genteel Nazi or white supremacist academics on campus? You would likely answer in the negative based on what you've written because you would, I infer, see their works as violent and threatening speech, speech that might also reduce the number of voices at the table. But that would make what is acceptable speech depend on what people find violent and threatening. But which people? Which table? In the case of gender theory, you acknowledge this concerns a minority. Are you suggesting that a minority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? If not, are you suggesting that a majority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? Is either of those acceptable? What exactly are you proposing here because it certainly seems like you are manipulatively trying to force your own speech norms on everyone else through the use of grievance. Should your sense of grievance become the basis of law or social norms? Imagine what would happen if we treated that kind of norm consistently. We couldn't, could we, and not just for practical reasons, but in principle.
I would go further. Liberalism as the philosophical and even theological position that informs the constitution and the very founding of the United States is truly very fatally flawed. The very notion of liberal neutrality is extremely problematic. There is no such thing as a neutral position. And so what liberalism effectively does, in an intellectually dishonest way, is it presents its own position as neutral and therefore beyond criticism. "Oh, yes, well, liberalism can accommodate everything, it can tolerate all positions, and allows the brotherhood of man to live together in harmony". Yes, all positions...that subordinate themselves to liberal norms and conform to its rather fleshy expectations. Liberalism is a definite position and its tyranny rests to a great degree on the pretense of this public neutrality, that all else is a private footnote added to the purity of this accommodating 'neutrality'. At least the mullahs are more honest.
(Btw, D. C. Schindler talks more about this in his book "The Politics of the Real" [0]. The arguments require some philosophical sophistication, but that's the point. Liberalism isn't the obvious truth. It's just the water we western fish have been swimming in and have formed habituated biases toward and favorable but vague associations with. There is much that is untenable with the liberal project, and as with many intellectual errors, it can take time for the abstract consequences to manifest in all their concrete and ugly glory.)
I wrote a long thoughtful response to this but then YC crashed as I tried to post it. The gist was: Im not offering a solution, I just want some acknowledgement that there are harmful voices. we can bicker about who they are, but we need tools for dealing with them. And no the government shouldnt be the ones to wield them.
I'm torn because on one hand, having been intimately acquainted with a trans person who suffered greatly, and having heard from them what their internal voice told them in duress (e.g., that they were "actually delusional", "trying to trick others", "convincing no one", and other harmful but thoroughly implanted negative self-talk), I would absolutely start a fight with someone for certain kinds of statements, especially in the presence of someone I expected had negative self-talk similar to what was being said about them. From that angle I agree that speech can be violent. I can also see it being exhausting, because I doubt there is an end to individuals willing to say such things. I could see that feeling like a Sisyphean trial.
At the same time, I think most speech that comes across this way is the product of ignorance or unmet emotional needs, and if you listen to people that say hateful things they will often weaken their view as soon as they realize you plan to actually listen to them and understand how they feel. Because of this, I recognize my instinct to start a fight as a result of how I feel, and not necessarily a productive course of action, and often results in worse outcomes (people doubling down, taking an angry response as justification of their action, etc). I also find that this builds trust, which is necessary for good faith conversation.
My real problem with 'speech as violence' comes down to the difference between moralizing and compassion; I believe that compassion will produce better outcomes. Further if it is about morality you have to decide the correct morality, and it is impossible to get actual agreement on that. If you did you would have someone disagreeing to test if you would allow them to think differently than you without attacking them.
There are indeed people that say vile shit to hurt others intentionally, for various reasons from demotivating someone competing with them, to sadism, to bullying (which I find is often someone who believes 'bad people should be punished' and that someone has done something 'socially bad' so that it is 'up to them to correct it'). For example, When a sibling of mine wore something that might be associated with being gay, he received harsh criticism from another sibling I knew cared about him. The criticizing sibling had been bullied, and believed his statements would dissuade what he saw as a social misstep. It was a failure of compassion. The form of the criticism was also exactly what the criticized sibling had thought about himself.
I've also found that sometimes when my first thought was 'wow this person is a terrible person', it turned out that they thought that other people thought there were a terrible person, and so they stopped trying to do things that might prevent that effect, causing more people to think it, causing them to care less, or possibly even say provocative things with resent. If you listen to such a person and sympathize with them - however hard it may be, even if you don't agree with them, it can completely break the script they are expecting to hear, and lacking a prepared response, you may get an actually vulnerable one.
Really, I think as soon as morals come up, and rightness or wrongness, empathy has failed. And it is hard because empathizing with people that have different backgrounds and views is really hard. People will talk about empathy all day long, but I rarely see anyone really willing to empathize with someone who is narcissistic or abusive, someone who lacks all social skills as an adult and is smug that they are well paid in spite of it, or someone who believes radially different on any topic to really care about. Can any of us sympathize really with someone who thinks learning programming is a waste of time and we should all learn 'real skills' like how to read a balance sheet or run a meeting? Or someone that believes SOAP is the greatest thing that has even happened and people complaining about it just don't get it? That JavaScript is the most consistently designed language that has even existed and should have monuments built in its honor? That open-source software is a communist fad that harms markets and shouldn't be legal?
For me, when someone plays music from their phone speakers on public transport it is very difficult for me to sympathize. When someone cuts my spouse off in traffic, they immediate cuss up a storm. When a relative makes a political statement that is a bit tasteless and you know they just skimmed a news article and have no idea what they are talking about, it can be difficult.
But I think people get it backwards when they think it is difficult and it is all these peoples fault. Fault is a moral determination. Really, it is imaginary. It is a fiction that helps society run smoothly.
I will share, to aid my point, an error I have made. The first is that when I was in HS, I littered soda cans, mostly to emphasize that I didn't care about rules or anything (what a silly time that was). Then one day I saw someone picking up trash, including something I had dropped that had blown aside. When I saw that, I felt really hurt, guilty and sad. To know that I had done that. To this day, I pick up every piece of trash I come across and carry it until I see a trash can. It was a bad thing to do, but if the person picking up the trash had come up to me and yelled at me, telling me I was a lazy piece of shit, that I didn't care about anyone else, etc. I think I would have had a very different experience, and a very different response.
I sincerely believe, and hope, that many of these individuals who make these comments have the potential to be the ones that later go to the greatest efforts to repair damage they see themselves as causing. But for this to happen, I think they need to feel it as guilt (internally and based on empathy), instead of as shame (externally, and based on moral error). And for that to happen they need to feel heard, and they need to be engaged with emotionally.
I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics.
Everyday on the internet I see White people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of White people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these neo-Nazi cons trying to cancel us are the real gulag runners". It's exhausting. Infuriating.
Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize majority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.
Oh, I get it. You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless? Shocking that you are being smarmy about it, but I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own face.
>You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless?
They're not arbitrary, nor were they inserted.
>Shocking that you are being smarmy about it,
IMAX-level projection.
>I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own face.
I'd recommend that you use your own words to communicate your point, not others'. It's not doing you the favors you seem to think it is, especially if you are taking the position that you have contributed an argument to the discussion.
The easiest way of doing so is to maximise the number of humans on the planet. Those who engage, and promote reproduction organ destruction whether surgical or chemical, do the exact opposite and decrease the number of voices -- in the long run to zero.
Promoters of sex-deception and concomitant fertility destruction, typically seem to communicate in a way that is (1) a refusal to address substantial points, (2) adversarial hyperbole, and (3) refusal to engage in any kind rational argument that could lead to mutually beneficial truth-seeking and learning.
I'm sure that you agree that the quoted sentence above confirms those patterns? Can I invite you to reflect on why we see this pattern?
de-platforming isn't a state operation. it is a community moderation and liability management tool among private entities in a shared space. I think its a false equivalency to say that "not being allowed to spew hate speech on twitter" is the same as "having your house stolen by the government". Also twitter has an appeal process and most of the time they just ask you to delete a tweet.
The FBI did send tweets and accounts to specific Twitter employees and repeatedly emailed them about those tweets and accounts asking for a follow-up on their status. The FBI said it was only notifying Twitter of censorship candidates, and allowing Twitter to make any decision it wanted, but the agency has a history of thinly veiling its coercive pressure on private individuals.
one congressman complaining to twitter about some content (some of which does break TOS) and sometimes getting his way is still not the same as being blacklisted by the state. "The Twitter Files" isn't some bombshell report on goberment control under threat of violence, it's a bunch of political agents doing what they do best: Complaining. I cannot stress this enough: government repossession of assets and freedoms like air travel are enforced under threat of violence and imprisonment. Emailing twitter execs because you dont like content is largely toothless and twitter can refuse or sue at any time.
The parent of this thread: "de-platforming isn't a state operation." A sitting Congressman (The State) made the request. And they were eventually shadowbanned (twitter calls it deamplification) So yes, it was a state operation.
The rest of your comment reads like beginning of The Narcissist's Prayer:
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
I think you are oversimplifying my frustration with the original comment.
The original comment put civil asset forfeiture and no-fly lists on the same moral plane as deplatforming. The difference between deplatforming on twitter and the others is the threat of state violence. My frustration with the outrage around "The Twitter Files" is that y'all equate lobbying with state violence. I do not think that congressmen directly lobbying with twitter execs is necessarily good, but i also don't think its on par with the state disappearing people. I think it is just a distraction from real state overreach domestic and abroad and makes people like you view it as a liberal brainworm thing, when both parties are responsible for the real threat of state violence.
Twitters choice to comply or ignore the lobbying requests is within their rights as a private institution and there is no credible evidence of state coercion other than a congressman complaining.
>6.Even when Twitter didn’t suspend an account, that didn’t mean they didn’t act. Schiff’s office repeatedly complained about “QAnon related activity” that were often tweets about other matters, like the identity of the Ukraine “whistleblower” or the Steele dossier:
>7.Twitter policy at the time didn’t ban QAnon, but “deamplified” such accounts. About the batch of tweets that included those above, Twitter execs wrote: “We can internally confirm that a number of the accounts flagged are already included in this deamplification.”
> but giving the people who run the servers for ChatGPT the ability to inject their own morals and political beliefs is a very real concern for people
You are concerned about what you perceive as post-facto editorializing. But I think that glazes over the fact that human bias and politics are already built into every AI learning model at the data-labeling phase. No AI model is ever really pure or unfiltered, they are fundamentally a reflection of how the developer views the world from the outset. I am not really bothered by any additional guardrails put on to make sure it errs on the side of caution when it comes to certain topics.
This idea that you should be able to use an AI model without any understanding of who built it is false. It's like reading the news. You know that certain publishers have their political perspectives, and you can read their perspectives while understanding their blind-spots and motivations and you can choose to believe them or look for other perspectives or have a nuanced understanding of the topic. The same is true for AI usage. Research the team that created it, read their ethics statements, and decide if that model is right for you. It's a literacy problem, your rights aren't being taken away because of someone's design choices.
i will settle for "not being an explicit partisan in the culture war", there is a meaningful distinction between ideas embedded in categories and "respond with a pre-programmed response for any of these topics"
i dont have to use chatgppt and i can make sure that chatgpt is never be used for anything of significance. Its not writing laws or arguing in court. nor should it.
I'll be mad when that happens. Which is how everything in the world works. The thing you seem to actually be afraid of is power not what people are doing with it. We literally have a system for compelling the behavior of private companies, public pressure and legislation. If the "Eye of Sauron" decides to turn on minorities or women they'll run afoul of Title IX and laws establishing federally protected classes.
Is there something currently unprotected you think the eye is poised to gaze upon? Like I get the "first they came for the fascists, the racists, the misogynists, and the homophobes" argument but the resolution is more likely to be "and then the world was better off" not "and then they suddenly turned their focus to family values."
There's always gonna be nuance on the edges and I think we would agree that in that case it's better to err on not taking action but trying to pretend that everything is grey and there aren't very clear things sitting in darkness does a disservice to people's ability to recognize and do something about obvious harm.
No and I didn't say that, I said that Title IX is protection for women, which it is. You can say that "discrimination of the basis of sex" is more general than that, and it is, but that's a completely ignorant reading of history and why this law came into existence. In an alternate universe where there wasn't widespread discrimination against women we likely wouldn't have gotten any laws like Title IX.
And laws establishing protected classes are protections for minorities. Do they also protect majorities? Yes. Were they established to do so, no.
unbiased AI is literally impossible. The nature of data labelling, and even language itself, means that somewhere a human is deciding what an AI "sees". If you want to make a transphobic AI, you can do that, no one is stopping you. You just have to label data objects according to your shitty worldview. Boohoo, someone decided not to let their creation be used to spread election misinformation or scaremonger about trans people.
ChatGPT already gives an answer that would be considered 'transphobic' by those who hold strong ideological beliefs on the primacy of gender identity over sex:
> What is a woman?
> A woman is an adult female human. Women are typically characterized by their reproductive biology, which includes their menstrual cycle, and the production of eggs and estrogen. Women are also known for their unique physical characteristics, such as their breast tissue and hips. They are also often distinguished by their social and cultural roles, such as their expected behavior and appearance. In general, the term "woman" is used to refer to any adult female person, regardless of her age, race, ethnicity, or other characteristics.
my point is that AI shouldn't be treated as gospel. it's not truth. it's a simulacrum of truth built by people. it looks like it has guardrails over hot topics like drag queen story time but not more complicated topics like the nature of sex/gender identity. congratulations on testing the boundaries i guess?
> the renters make horrible financial decisions that set them up to work until they die
The point of this article is that those "horrible financial decisions" aren't mistakes, they are costs of living that are imposed upon those that are already struggling. Sometimes it may be irresponsibility, other times it is an inevitability, a distinction that you truly cant discern from the outside. It's possible that splurging on a car might be a long term benefit, maybe fuel efficiency or maintainence costs are money savers after the initial buy in. You don't know the personal calculus of each decision so maybe don't assign motive to what renters are doing under the heel of capitalism.
And it turns out, these people need a roof over their heads, which you could provide at a cheaper cost if you chose to but instead you take a chunk of their paycheck each month as your personal profit. Like you could help people. You could treat housing as a necessary resource and not a commodity. Overnight you can alleviate people's debt if you wanted to.
very fair, but from my handful of observations I've seen people chase brand name over the quality benefits a brand carries (e.g. maintenance, efficiency) to consider
no it's not. if you let cancer be, it festers and kills you. if you let color be, it does nothing and people can get on with their lives, except for the absolutely woke ones, who then have to find a new hobby.
An interesting sidebar there is that allegedly, a popular community modder was given advanced access to the game, allegedly so that DLSS support would be available near launch.
Anyway idk man, all these issues are manageable. Its janky but its fun jank.