Not really. It is the tolerance paradox.

Banning slavery might be authoritarian but it is less authoritarian than allowing it. So on the political scale, banning slavery is anti-authoritarian and allowing it is authoritarian.

I think it is a bit unfair to give you shit for your question.

it is normal to confuse authoritarian system with restrictions of freedom. Because generally that is how it works. But not in this case…

Because it is the paradox of tolerance all over again. Technically it is authoritarian to ban slavery but it would be more authoritarian to allow it as people would own people… So on the scale of how authoritarian an action is, banning slavery is as anti-authoritarian as it gets and allowing slavery is as authoritarian as it gets. (Of course, a world without slavery and without any rules would be less authoritarian but… I think we know better than trying that with slavery)

I hope this helps in actually understanding the reason instead of being told what it is.

E.g. it is a reality that there is currently some correlations between race and e.g. poverty. Even we don’t consider those correlations when enacting laws, we create unjust laws that impact some races more than others, which would feedback into those correlations.

Extremely stupid example for. CT (critical theory in general), if your government would enact a law that would state that the government would build you your dream house for 5 millions. Even if it is more expensive than 5 million. Then “everyone” can get their dream house on paper, but in reality only the rich can get it and they get additional wealth that the general public would have to cover. Impoverishing the poor more and enrich the wealthiest more. So an unjust law.

Well, I would love if that concept could be retired and forgotten sooner than later. But as things are right now, e.g. CRT is required to get there and CRT requires the concept of race :/

I read it here before but the best way is deconstructing a specific case of the person in question choosing. The problem is that replacing one influencer with another one won’t change the understanding issue of misplaced trust in media/people.

I think that these things should be voluntary by the way. Both for success chances and pure respect for your sibling.

Ask him if they would be interested. Then make them choose an episode. Prepare yourself. Ask them to prepare a little document in which they express their understanding and lesson that they learned from the episode. Ask them if they are willing to investigate how true these things are. Look for evidence together or alone. When done, get together and talk about the truthfulness of the ideas.

Alternatively ask yourself if they have some kind of expertise in something and look if there is a Joe Rogan episode about and suggest them to watch it. The deconstruction would happen automatically. You can help by ask them questions about it. Having to vocalize criticism towards something is an amazing reflection exercise.

That man is onto something. God bless!

What communities do you like? I am looking for more

Jk rolling made some really strange decisions. Some of it really makes you wonder if maybe she was being a little too honest or just too unaware to see the implications.

I just did and some of the stuff is wild. Not gonna quote or reference anything for my account safety, don’t ask.

I would never say that iphone users are clueless by default about tech. Many are, just like android users and some act like apple has the most amazing tech, but I wouldn’t say that iphone users are generally clueless.

I think there are good and bad reasons to have an iphone.

One of us! One of us!

Sorry mate, you drunk the Koolaid. I hope you will see the much sadder reality of who he is and what he does, because you will learn to spot some well crafted propaganda.

I agree and I am fully supportive of an open source computer from top to bottom. This shouldn’t be here.

So just to make sure, I am not American and I am wondering if I get this right. If prompt by the choice between Biden who (at least from your pov) supports genocide and trump who said clearly that he would let Russia take Ukraine, and has been completely silent on the matter which aligns with his exclusive focus on america, and had Israeli minister of national security express support for him as he expects trump to give them for freedom to fight Hamas, you want someone who supports Palestine to vote for trump? Just wondering.

Edit: trump stated that Israel would have to “finish the problem” in Gaza. So trump is now vocally supporting the events described by you as a genocide.

Honestly I am mostly bothered by the “reddit atheist” stereotype. Most of the atheist even on Reddit, that I have met, even in Reddit, were as annoying or pleasant as everyone else. But it feels like if you oppose religious nonsense as it gets pushed in your face online, “everyone” thinks you are some radical who hates all e.g. christians, while in reality you might intentionally buy some handmade crafts for the local church to support some charity and support your elderly local community by rewarding their social efforts.

I believe so and that would render you (or anyone) unable to tell the difference between ai and “true” ai

Qualia is, if I am not mistaken, totally subjective. My argument is that how could you tell that a computer doesn’t have qualia and prove to me that you have qualia. While I wouldn’t limit it to qualia. What can you detect in other people that an ai couldn’t replicate? Because as long as they are able to replicate all these qualities, you can’t tell if an ai is “true” or not, as it might have those qualities or might just replicate them.

The difference between “ai” and “true ai” is as vague as it gets. Are you a true intelligent agent? Or just a “intelligent agent”? Like seriously how are you different to a machine with inputs and outputs and a bunch of seemingly “random” things happening in-between

While I understand and agree with you, the obvious counterargument is how many people get serviced and the generated value of them being served. I mean people won’t argue that a car is better than a bus because the car produces less carbon. What I think is the better way to highlight the ridiculousness of those icons, a newspaper website produces more carbon (if energy source is producing carbon) than a server that just return the certification icon. So newspaper website is worse? That is how this certification works… Low information density gets rewarded. Which is contra productive if the goal is an energy efficient web.

To be fair, the service in the screenshot, tries to estimate the average carbon over the year and collects data to improve estimated that counter some of my critic, but it doesn’t fix the ignorance to the kind of data provided and rewards low data density to some degree

I am sorry to disappoint. I don’t know.