231–240 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s that combativeness again.
No more combative than “2+2 isn’t five”. If trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence is perceived as combative, it’s a canary for that individual - to become better at handling trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence.. challenging dubious claims is the default , most rational approach. We should all do it, all the time. Sorry if it seems combative. Maybe it is, but it’s optimal and normal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s that combativeness again.
No more combative than “2+2 isn’t five”. If trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence is perceived as combative, it’s a canary for that individual - to become better at handling trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence.. challenging dubious claims is the default , most rational approach. We should all do it, all the time. Sorry if it seems combative. Maybe it is, but it’s optimal and normal.
I don’t think it a “dubious” claim at all - you’ve been on the internet there is a community for _everything_ it’s not surprising there is a community for this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s that combativeness again.
I didn't read his questions nearly as combative as I read yours. And I say that as someone who's very aware of and very adverse to the idea and tactic of concern trolling. I've spent enough time working with teams dedicated to combatting proana, and other S/SH issues, so I know pretty well how significant a problem it is. If I'd only read the above non-answers I'd probably be likely to take the side of the person you…
I think you’ve misread that I have any stake at all in proana/anorexia promotion - I just know it exists and the “online 10 hours a day for 10 years” guy who hasn’t come across it went straight to ‘is there a single site’ rather than I dunno, googling it.
> People in the UK will be better protected from illegal harms online What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impact might be inflated). If you have to go looking for them, isn't this just 'whack a mole' (since 'online harms' will hard to 100% eradicate), but at the expense of destroying parts of the inte…
——-
Online harms are always going to be impossible. Same as crime.
Parts of the internet are already being destroyed, and will continue to be destroyed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What content promotes eating disorders? There are numerous sites and social media pages on all the major platforms that literally promote anorexia. That you’ve never heard of them should perhaps encourage you to take a more curious and less combative approach to this topic.
> encourage you to take a more curious .. But: > Is there a single site ... ? is asking for a tiny bit of evidence (this is gentle curiousness; the antithesis of combative). Earnestly, are you able to provide one site that 'promotes eating disorders', so I can be educated? If the answer is 'any site with charismatic too-slim people', isn't that extremely difficult to administer, and possibly become horribly discrimin…
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1357034x1244082...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What content promotes eating disorders?! They’re talking about thinspo. Was pretty popular and survived search bans on many platforms. To save you a search, it’s mostly about getting thing legs that do not touch and overall ~40kg body type.
How's thinspo different to fat-acceptance communities? (I have nothing against either, I think people ought to be free to pursue information on their body-type)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
About banning ads for “certain types of porridge”: > …the majority of porridge, muesli and granola products will not be affected by the advertising restrictions but some less healthy versions (with added sugar, chocolate, syrup) could be affected. > Sometimes products may be marketed as, or perceived by consumers to be, healthy but in fact contain surprisingly high levels of saturated fat, salt or sugar. Source: http…
I know you think this is a gotcha but you're seriously advocating for the banning of advertisements of certain kinds of food? Based on the fact that what, some people aren't smart enough to read an ingredient label?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The country doesn't need high earners per se, it needs people that contribute effectively. There are plenty of "high earners" that are parasites, contributing little and extracting much. It all makes much more sense once you realise that governments spend before they tax and so what really matters is real resources.
> There are plenty of "high earners" that are parasites, contributing little and extracting much. No, not at all. There may be a few (0.01%) rich people that don't contribute much, but high __earners__ are paying extremely high amounts of taxes with nothing in return. The "parasites", as you call them, are low-income workers that get the extreme majority of benefits while essentially contributing nothing. Take a look…
The purpose of tax in this context is to reduce the propensity to consume by the payer (allowing the state to purchase it). Since the wealthy have a lower marginal propensity to consume, tax from them is worth less per unit.
Moreover, the value of someone is their contribution. As I said, there are plenty of people with lots of money that contribute little in real terms and still live lavish lifestyles. The best that can be said of tax in that context is that they might be living slightly less lavish lifestyles than otherwise, but it certainly doesn't make them more useful.
The point of what I'm saying is that you have very little power with your wallet. You do have power when you leave to remove your skills, which should doubtless be of concern, but people in general have an out-of-date understanding of their financial use to a country (which includes the politicians, so your rhetoric still carries some weight).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I said “alarming number of” I was specifically referring to journalists being harassed by the UK state. I am aware of at least 3 or 4 this year. Non-speech related offences I don’t care about in relation to this topic. I believe the 3000 a year number was banded about for speech offences. I do think it is likely that this number is roughly correct as it matches up with what I previously heard. I btw believe one…
I'm not telling you it isn't happening - I linked to the current UK summaries of all the cases referred by police to the CPS for prosocution. The 7 cases a day to which you referred to above will be in there and quite likly flagged as Hate Crime related. > I believe the 3000 a year number was banded about for speech offences. ( Bandied ? ) Sure, I dare say it was, the real question was that a reliable bit of infomati…
This convo thread the same route of someone disputing the fact the journalists were having their homes raided, I couldn’t remember the name of the journalist or the exact time, so when someone does find it, we then have a discussion on the exact language and numbers. Ignoring the fact that what I said was largely correct.
The number seems reasonable considering the data we have. TBH, It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 or 3000. It is too much either way IMO.
This isn’t a right or left "team sports" issue either. I deliberately avoid talking in those terms yet people seem to assign a team to you.