151–160 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So should high end nightclubs be publicly shamed for doing what they do (when what their "users" want is exactly non-ugly people) and driven out of business? Sure, why not?
Should MENSA be shutdown on the grounds of it's discriminatory membership model?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because TikTok isn't a nightclub, it's a place for people to put their own content out on the Internet. Not just people, but primarily people living in a pathologically authoritarian state that doesn't allow them to access other places on the Internet that they could put their content on. But even ignoring the authoritarian state angle, surely you'd think it'd be weird and counterproductive for user content from YouT…
Except, it IS a night club. The Web is not what it used to be decades ago. There is no elusive concept as "The Web", it's now just a different way for people to connect, just like going to a nightclub. It's been like that ever since the majority of the world got on it. You say "it's a place for people to put their content out on the internet", but you don't ask WHY they would do that. And I don't know if you have use…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If someone's nose is causing as much distress as gender dysphoria, why not? I definitely agree with you on this one. But that's where I feel the line gets super blurry. This is not a white or black issue. Gender Dysphoria is an actual documented mental disorder. Feeling ugly (or in the context of this debate, being classified as ugly), in general, it's not.
Why would it be called a mental disorder? If it's a disorder, it's a physical disorder, whose symptoms are the shitty behavior of other people that it "causes". Or perhaps a mental disorder in those other people, but that's not likely.
On the other hand, your health insurance could easily create subjective definitions to deny coverage. Because unlike gender dysphoria, beauty is not binary.
With Gender Dysphoria there is only one direction when it comes to re-assignment options, and it is fully documented that this surgery is beneficial for the patient's mental health.
With beauty/ugliness, there are hundreds of possible permutations and no documented precedence to validate that this is a necessary surgery.
I feel like we want the world to be a better place in 2020, and then we are reminded the humans are basically still humans.
This is what happens when you mix utilitarian morality with a desire to stop online bullying. You just stop letting the most likely targets of bullying be seen. This is much cheaper and easier than trying to get rid of everyone who has ever been mean online, because that's everyone.
What in TFA indicates that these policies were intended to stop online bullying? Just as plausible to think that they were intended to create a saccharine user experience in order to promote growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly my original argument. "I determine you're ugly but you can still come into my nightclub" is not that much better than "I determine you're ugly and you can't come into my nightclub"
How about “I’m not allowed to use attractiveness to determine if you can come into my nightclub”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not just people, but primarily people living in a pathologically authoritarian state that doesn't allow them to access other places on the Internet that they could put their content on. No it's not. China has their own version of TikTok called Douyin. If I recall correctly, TikTok isn't even available in China. Since TikTok isn't even used in China, who exactly are the users you're describing as "people living in a…
Mind you it's the same company behind TikTok tailored to westerns.
> but primarily people living in a pathologically authoritarian state that
This is patently false. Unless you're calling the US an authoritarian state.
How is this different from nightclubs having a high bar to entry? I am not saying this is an ethical thing to do, I am saying these apps are no different from nightclubs and they gotta do what they gotta do to survive. And no matter what you may say, humans prefer non ugly people over ugly people. I am sorry but this is simply how humans work. If you disagree, then you are a hypocrite. So should high end nightclubs b…
Business that engage in immoral behaviour should be shamed. Doesn't matter if it is casino sites, drug dealers or nightclubs that discriminate against ugly people. Whether that shaming results in them becoming unprofitable is beside the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not just people, but primarily people living in a pathologically authoritarian state that doesn't allow them to access other places on the Internet that they could put their content on. No it's not. China has their own version of TikTok called Douyin. If I recall correctly, TikTok isn't even available in China. Since TikTok isn't even used in China, who exactly are the users you're describing as "people living in a…
Have you gone to https://www.douyin.com/ ? it IS TIKTOK...
The point is:
> but primarily people living in a pathologically authoritarian state that
This is patently false. Unless you're calling the US an authoritarian state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if racists get friend suggestions for people who aren't their "race" in appearance terms; I'm imagining that could be an emergent selection not explicitly encoded for. If that were the case ... would it be so different to people making that selection. It's a question of allowance vs. instigation I suppose ... but if you knew that behaviour was likely to emerge then the line gets blurred somewhat ...
Rarely. I operate several facebook profiles that exclusively look at very racist or politically extreme people, and guess who FB keeps recommending as potential friends.