111–120 of 209 posts
This is a non-story. Someone on twitter wrote: > There is dignity in dying. As a priest, I am privileged to witness it often. Assisted suicide, where it is practices, it not an expression of freedom or dignity, but of the failure of a society to accompany people on their "way of the cross" Twitter then flagged it for "promoting or encouraging suicide or self-harm". Obviously it is not, but this is a rather complicate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does AWS caving to social pressure to fuck over Parler fit your narrative?
If parler knew what the were up against they would have had on prem infra. Parler did not have technological parity with Facebook. It's embarrassing to say you're going to beat Facebook at their own game and then create a business model that's unsustainable from the very beginning.
Why are you commenting when you have no idea what you're talking about?
It's a half-joke in Catholic media circles that making comments like this is likely to receive some kind of punishment on social media... I say "half-joke" because it happens extremely frequently and those writers in that world all know it happens and try to laugh about it. As someone in the tech world, I spend most of my time interacting with more "liberal" people. I don't hear about this happening with any frequenc…
It's not left/right any more, it's "people who want to control others" vs. "people who want to be left the fuck alone".
The important point is, no group when in power ever says “you know, maybe we should knock this off.” They only ever get that idea when they’re not in power anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> advocating against it can also be considered advocating for suicide In the same way that advocating against guns can be considered advocating for switchblades.
Advocating for euthanasia is advocating for the government to force doctors to take someone’s life even against the doctor’s will. It’s an interesting form of violence.
I live in Europe, in a country where black population is statistically insignificant, I only see black people about once every fortnight, and I live in a city of close to 2 million people. A lot of my acquaintances and friends have practically zero exposure to what caused the BLM movement and during last summer there was a significant number of people posting stuff along the lines of "all lives matter". To illustrate…
So you posted an Alt-Right and a Nazi slogan on Facebook without context and wonder why Facebook didn't like it? How should anyone know that you were being sarcastic? I would understand your confusion if you had made a long joke or written a sarcastic story, but posting Nazi slogans without changing or doing anything to them is not really humorous (to me). To the public, there's no difference between you posting thes…
I found that people around me did not understand the BLM context, because there is no local context. "Roma lives matter" could be a local context, because there's a lot of discrimination against roma people.
I was not making a joke, I was angry at how commonplace the hatred was from people who might not have seen a single black person apart from the cinema screen.
The police brutality context is also kind of lost here, because while there are a bunch of dirty cops, physical brutality from them is practically unheard of.
The holocaust, on the other hand is a very real thing. People were deported to Auschwitz and other camps from the very _street_ I live in.
I just hoped people would realise how that certain good-sounding slogan is not much different from the contemporary good-sounding slogan.
Again, maybe I should have added an explanation, but I felt like it took away from contrast and I was very fed up with the amount of backlash towards what people overseas were standing up for.
Had conversations with friends about the (lack of) contrast between the two slogans and basically everyone understood the point. Facebook did not, but as I said, I'm aware that this was an edgy form for my point.
Regarding whether there's a difference between who is saying what: well of course there is, the context of this post was my posting history standing up for various sidelined groups and minorities and the audience of this post were my friends who very well know that I am as far from using either of the slogans in an agreeing manner as is Trump from a PhD in psychology.
I live in Europe, in a country where black population is statistically insignificant, I only see black people about once every fortnight, and I live in a city of close to 2 million people. A lot of my acquaintances and friends have practically zero exposure to what caused the BLM movement and during last summer there was a significant number of people posting stuff along the lines of "all lives matter". To illustrate…
I think it is not appropriate to compare the Holocaust with slavery and disenfranchisement of blacks in the US. The Holocaust was a event spanning under a decade that must not be forgotten. Slavery was reduced in the US but not banned so it is a problem that has been spanning 400 years - and still happening. They are both wicked and evil issues but entirely different in scope and effect. I'm not sure if it would be o…
I was illustrating how people come up with slogans that sound good for things that destroy lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And I have since then always arrived to the conclusion that Facebook cannot interpret irony, satire, sarcasm and reflection. Sarcasm has to be the least effective possible way to communicate anything, anywhere. You are absolutely begging to be misinterpreted or misunderstood, either legitimately or even deliberately. And you can't really defend yourself because 'it was sarcasm' won't cut it as a defence with many p…
> Why would anyone choose to communicate about a complex issue this way? Same reason other people make bad communications. They assume everybody else thinks the same as they think, and know what they know, and know nothing else and think nothing else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And I have since then always arrived to the conclusion that Facebook cannot interpret irony, satire, sarcasm and reflection. Sarcasm has to be the least effective possible way to communicate anything, anywhere. You are absolutely begging to be misinterpreted or misunderstood, either legitimately or even deliberately. And you can't really defend yourself because 'it was sarcasm' won't cut it as a defence with many p…
Do you think essays like "A Modest Proposal" are likely to be misunderstood?
And also see the difficulty that the 'abolish the police' movement have gotten into explaining that they don't literally mean abolish, especially since some of them do literally mean that, so you get really stuck trying to explain you were trying to make a point, but yes those other people other there who used exactly the same words as you did mean it literally but that wasn't quite what you meant you were using it for terseness... etc. Why give yourself this problem?
Seems a really bad tool to try to use for anything. Be straightforward with your communication. Don't give people an opening to attack you for no other reason than trying to be whimsical in your writing.
> And even if euthanasia is just that – and Twitter is very proud to toot its horn as the sensitive and sensible, woke platform that clamps down on promotion and encouragement of self-harm, including its ultimate form, suicide – the tweet, even though it opposed it, got banned. This is such an interesting topic, because while euthanasia can be considered a way of suicide, advocating against it can also be considered…
The offending tweet was arguing against all forms of suicide, assisted or otherwise. I'm trying to understand your point charitably, but it escapes me how arguing against suicide could be interpreted as arguing for suicide. I understand that there's a consequentialist argument ("it is going to happen anyway"), but that seems to accept something as inevitable which is not.
Going against legal alcohol yields more illegal alcohol.
Going against legal X yields more illegal X.
Same concept, going against legal suicide (euthanasia) yields more suicides. Sure overall the number of suicides might go down, maybe even very noticeable, but the quality of care would suffer tremendously. I'm not arguing on suicide vs suicide, but on the quality of it.
I believe it's better if N people decide to end their lifes consciously, surrounded by loved ones in a medical facility painlessly than if M people commit suicide alone and ashamed at home.