darq

Anki might be worth your while if you are trying to learn something.

Load it up with a flashcard deck of something you want to remember, and it’ll show you those flashcards. Lots of people use it to learn languages, but it’s also good for anything that requires memorisation.

I would love to do something like this, except it’s way too goofy with the attached controllers.

Steamdeck in a tablet form factor would be perfect.

Even without knowledge of the source of the image, there is no reasonable way a normal person interprets that message as a genuine threat of violence.

Because the picture of the “gayroller 2000” is very obvious satire from the known-satire comic The Oatmeal, originally posted to satirise conservatives’ baseless fears of “the gay agenda”. Seeing a pattern?

On the other hand, there a pattern of hostility, hatred, and violence from conservatives towards LGBT people. This pattern is both historical and contemporary, and currently it is absurdly common for LGBT people to be called “groomers” and be accused of being dangerous to children.

Gay people obviously do not want to run over straight people with a steamroller. On the other hand, the people posting wood chipper memes… Some of them would, and have, followed through.

I quite simply do not believe that for even a second.

Let’s not pretend that you actually give a damn about transgender people. This is just concern trolling.

A massacre, or a genocide, is more than just “one’s” life ending. It is one’s own life, the lives of one’s loved ones, and the lives of one’s people.

I’d urge you to try and read my comments again.

But how can I hear “diverse opinion” if X opinions are banned/blocked/moderated in the first place?

There is no space where all opinions are welcome. It simply does not exist. Some opinions are going to force out others.

If you run a space where Nazi opinions are okay to speak, you can’t really expect to hear Jewish opinions. Or opinions of PoC or queer people or disabled people and so on and so on.

So most places do the calculations. You can ban this one view. And in return an entire spectrum of views becomes more welcome.

Bigotry is a painfully simple, painfully shallow, and painfully boring viewpoint. It is almost completely one-dimensional, simplifiable to the idea that the “other” is inferior or dangerous and is to be shunned or feared. It is a viewpoint that we all already know, one we have all already heard. Banning it loses us almost nothing, and in return we gain so, so many more valuable insights.

Is it the fault of the principle of free speech, or the legion of stupid people being allowed to talk freely?

I’m not talking about “the principal of free speech”. I’m pushing back on the foolish assertion that moderation leads to echo chambers for lazy and dull minds. When exactly the opposite is true.

I’m saying that if you want to hear diverse opinions, a free-for-all is a bad idea. Because that free-for-all leads to echo chambers.

You probably want restrictions because it would never apply to you. Denying you talking about stuff that doesn’t phase you, is easy.

No no, don’t make stupid assumptions about me so that you don’t have to confront my point.

What if that platform bans opinions that you happen to have?

Most of them do. Your assumptions are wrong.

Sure, if you point at 4chan or similar…free speech attracts shitnuggets and end up being an echo chamber. But that’s the fault of us humans being crap, and not free speech being inherently bad.

I never said free speech was inherently bad. Try responding to what I wrote, not what you imagined that I wrote.

I personally prefer spaces where everyone can voice any shit. Censorship is for lazy minds and a dull audience. IMHO.

I always find this take to be remarkably short-sighted.

Because if you actually want to hear diverse opinions, you have to cultivate a space where diverse people, with diverse experiences, feel free to speak.

Pretty much every space that tolerates open bigotry becomes deeply unpleasant for the targets of that bigotry. Which means those people tend to leave.

Which in turn means that those spaces soon turn into the dullest echo chamber, populated only by people unaffected the bigotry. Sure no views were censored. You just harass everybody different off the platform. The net effect is the same.

You can’t just block someone doxxing you. And it’s a lot different when it’s not one person, or even a handful of people, but thousands of people who are sincerely furious with you because of things they’ve convinced themselves that you have done.

A bare keyboard attached to a screen, that I could plug my phone (possibly running Phosh) and use it as a hardware for a laptop experience

Those exist!

They’re called “lapdocks”.

But the article isn’t the one originating the line that “this is Israel 9/11”. It is taking that line from other sources, sources who are directly making that comparison, and showing that while there are indeed similarities, they aren’t what those sources might want people to believe.

Everything about this article sounds like it condemns certain actions but reductively concludes that overreactive violence is the same as overreactive violence regardless of the rest of the story, equating internationally condemned military action(Iraq) with internationally supported persistent genocide(Israel).

And it goes on to suggest that we should be condemning Israel’s actions in the same way that the US’s actions have been condemned. That there should not be that popular support for this genocide. That we know how wrong the US’s actions were, and that we should not be fooled into believing that what is happening now is as simple as a reaction to the Hamas attacks.

At worst, I see the article as not addressing the full story, because it’s only addressing the specific media line comparing this to 9/11. And I can see your reasoning about comparing a military action to a genocide and how that’s inadequate. But to say it’s “lending credibility” to genocide… I don’t really get where you are getting that from. Is the complaint mostly just that, while it is condemning Israel’s actions, it isn’t going far enough in the condemnation?

The conclusion pushed by this article makes genocide easier to swallow.

I really don’t see how? Everything about the article condemns these actions?

The whole idea of twisting the media’s line of “this is Israel’s 9/11” makes it more impactful, rather than making it easier to swallow.

Israel is not “about to take” any actions it has not already pursued against the Palestinians for fifty years

Yes, agreed. And the article is supportive of that conclusion too. It takes a mocking tone at the idea that the attacks “came out of nowhere” and specifically states that the US, and Israel, played a key role in creating the conditions that give rise to the attacks that they then use as a justification for further escalation.

parallel to 9/11 is a mistake, or(more likely) a jingoistic attempt to trick Americans into supporting a rapidly concluding genocide.

I took the exact opposite conclusion from the article. It seems to be a condemnation of the US’s actions in the wake of 9/11, and thus also a condemnation of the actions the author believes Israel are about to take in the wake of the Hamas attack.

Who cares? Like genuinely who cares? It’s a chunky laptop. Big whoop.

Yeah piss off little troll.

And there it is, the extremist trademark. Attack and demonize anyone not in your “tribe”. They’re just an “other” right?

I haven’t demonised you. I called you a dickhead. And I called you a dickhead because of your actions, not your beliefs.

Thanks for confirming everything I thought about you.

Think whatever you want about me. It was clear from your first message that you were going to do that anyway, considering you imagined my entire worldview.

'm not ranting about anything, I’m just responding to your posts. It’s not my fault you choose to speak in euphemisms rather than directly say what you mean.

So you have imagined my entire worldview and all the positions you are arguing against.

No, dickhead. When I argue for socialism, I actually argue for socialism with my full chest, not with euphemisms.

Anyway, this is not about me. So unless you want to try and defend your indefensible positions… have a nice day.

So you slither into my mentions, hallucinate things I didn’t say, and expect me to “defend” arguments that only exist in your head. Sod all the way off.

Dropping the biggest turd of an argument and expecting me to pick it up. Pick it up yourself, and eat it.