Lost my big boy pants. :sad:



:up:

Was it deleted because I wrote so little, just drawing your attention to it? — petrichor

Yes, there's nothing wrong with the subject, but your "OP" was just a short question. Something like, "What do you think of Chat GPT?". If that's all the effort you're going to put in, you can ask in the Shoutbox. If you want to write an OP, you should really have a couple of paragraphs and a thesis. You can repost again if you write a longer OP.

Maybe take a look at this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op

It doesn't have to be that in-depth, but it does need to have some substance.

Kind of, but I think ideological control is more complicated and deeper than you paint it, which seems to be progressive/PC = bad vs libertarian (or who?) = good. It encompasses this dichotomy and more. It's structured in the very way we express ourselves regardless of our surface ideologies and forms the basis on which we can coherently fight battles we think are important but hardly ever get us anywhere. Maybe for another thread...

We're probably drifting off topic, so I won't say much more on this except to advise if you set your sights a little lower, you might hit something. The overwrought rhetoric shouldn't be necessary.

Another way to put this is you are not arguing against totalitarianism at all, you are arguing against other stuff and using the concept of totalitarianism as a rhetorical device to try to get people more interested/excited.

E.g. again:

Totalitarianism refers to the belief that one ideology possesses the complete truth - this being by definition wrong makes every totalitarian system revolve around lies to keep the ideology intact. Propaganda, censorship, withholding of information, etc. are all instrumental to protecting the government ideology - we call them 'narratives' these days. And that's exactly what we're seeing today. — Tzeentch

You make some comparisons and suddenly magic happens and you've transformed regular government malpractice and corruption into totalitarianism:

"a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."

https://www.google.com/search?q=totalitarianism&oq=totalitarianism&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l2.3808j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But the magic doesn't work because no matter how many times you repeat the word, the U.S. (for example) is still not N. Korea, Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia.

You can stop avoiding the point now, namely that a little bit of shit in your pie ruins your pie, and a little bit of totalitarianism in your state ruins your state. — Tzeentch

Censorship etc is not uniquely totalitarian. Therefore, e.g., having a little bit of censorship in a state does not equate to having a little bit of totalitarianism in a state. And even if you get over that, you'd have much work to do demonstrating your thesis. A shit pie analogy won't do it. You're skipping a bunch of steps and elevating rhetoric over analysis. Keep in mind that the operative part of the term totalitarianism is "total" not "little bit". Littlebitarianism is not the bogey man here. Start from that realisation and work your way up.

As I said, according to your own analogy you are eating little bits of shit then. 'Cos that's all there is to eat and it beats total shit. Else, move to N. Korea, right?

Because otherwise you are eating that fruit pie with little bits of shit in it and presumably being thankful it's not 100% shit.

Ah, I see, so you've left your lying/censoring state behind and are now living... where?

I'd say when it's instrumentalized for political gain we are well within the realm of totalitarianism. — Tzeentch

When a food contains vitamin C, we are well within the realm of an orange. But the food might also be a kiwi or even a potato. Yes, there are some negatives that almost all forms of governments share but they can for all that be very different, even categorically so, because their categorisation is not as simple a process as identifying a common instance of a negative behavior.

When political entities spread lies, censor and withhold information they're mimicing totalitarian regimes — Tzeentch

Not really. There's no regime that ever existed that hasn't censored something or withheld some information or lied sometimes or produced some sort of propaganda. What defines a totalitarian regime is not that these things are done but the extent they are done.

True.

I note on Twitter the term "Jewlon Musk" now being applied because Elon banned Ye. Most likely from the same crowd that cheered Trump's return. Maybe at some point he'll realize these sorts are not worth pandering to.

Yep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

"The ruling represented a turning point on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations"

So, if corporations are people re free speech, again it seems to give them a right to say "no" to free speech absolutism through censorship and create an odd paradox for American free speech advocates.

That is not free speech. That's the free market speaking. — Hanover

I suppose I disagree on the interpretation here by taking the free market speaking freely to be a form of free speech. But, yes, Musk is a hypocrite and a grifter and will take full advantage of his celebrity status and those enamoured by it to slip all sorts of contradictory BS past.

Yes, but the doctrine "more free speech!" is itself an ideological injunction that is bound to be challenged under its own terms. The market can exercise its free speech through censorship. It says "Nazis and racists are bad for business". It can only be prevented from enacting this stance by restricting its free speech under the dictat of free speech absolutism.

Are you suggesting they've grown a conscience and are acting against their interests now? — Isaac

No, I was referring to unrestricted political donations being protected as a form of free speech in the US.

As long as you have political careers relying on political donations from corporations, you'll have said 'unholy alliance'. Ironically, such corrupt mutual backscratching is excused as an exercise in free speech.

:up: :100:

Disclaimer: I am not a financial adviser. :wink:

But, yes, if anyone's ever going to buy, it should be in a deep bear market or the start of a bull. Best of luck anyhow. :victory: I bought some ETH recently so I'm with ya.

There are several technical measurements that say now is a relatively good time to buy. But generally it's a matter of common sense. If you believe in the technology, you buy fear and sell greed and be prepared to wait for the market cycle to work its way out. And we are currently well into fear mode. But if you don't understand the tech enough to believe in it, I'd stay out of this market altogether because yes, everything could go down significantly more. e.g. Since its inception, ETH has gone from $10>>1400>>80>>4500>>1100 now. And that's the second least volatile coin. For the vast majority of the others , it's more like 1>>1000>>0.1.

Is it a trend that some the Super Bowl adds are for some new upstart companies a canary in the coal mine indicator (just notice what companies Super Bowl add is from my last comment above)? — ssu

The Super Bowl would have been a pretty good time to sell. But crypto as a whole is these days mostly just higher beta on U.S. stocks, which as you know follow rates/Fed balance sheet/liquidity. When the S and P bottoms that's likely crypto's bottom too. The tech isn't going anywhere.

Trump — 180 Proof

Perhaps they believe letting a criminal run the country is a greater risk. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

Your faith in the moral sensitivities of politicians is touching. Excuse me if I pass.

De Santis will be a big favourite over Biden but may not beat a better Dem.

They will be doing the Dems a huge favor if they can get enough mud to stick for Biden to drop out of the 2024 race. — Baden

Seems a bit self-destructive. They will be doing the Dems a huge favor if they can get enough mud to stick for Biden to drop out of the 2024 race. And if they can't, they'll look like idiots

Karl Marx's Irish Grandson. Not sure about football but he can belt a sliotar from one end of the pitch to the other.

I've said all I'm going to say on this anyhow. Please get back on topic.

People can get annoyed by others just for them being a certain race... letting that, knowingly or unknowingly, drive to a certain action against that person or group, should be considered racism, no? — Christoffer

Yes.

People can get annoyed by others just for... speaking a certain way, or presumably not being as fluent in a certain language, but letting that, knowingly or unknowingly, drive to a certain action against that person or group, should be considered racism, no? — Christoffer

No.

Again, there's no necessary connection between being annoyed at someone for speaking a certain way or not being fluent in a certain language and racism. Can't you think of a million non-racist examples of someone being annoyed at someone's speech?

(A presumption that non-native speakers have got something wrong just because they're a non-native speaker would be a prejudice, yes. I'm not saying there's no issue there. But there's no necessary connection to racism whatsoever any more than in the above example. )

So if someone punches you in the face because they don't like your race, that's a racist act. If they punch you in the face just because you are really annoying them, it's not. In this case, that is the relevant analogy.

You mean this guy on the right.

The reason for the act makes the racist in this case. There are lots of acts like that.

Funny enough, even as a native speaker I had to edit that because I somewhat misphrased it the first time. There you go, ain't none of us perfect!

Sounds like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

"Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of taking a true conditional statement (e.g., "If the lamp were broken, then the room would be dark"), and invalidly inferring its converse ("The room is dark, so the lamp is broken"), even though that statement may not be true. This arises when a consequent ("the room would be dark") has other possible antecedents (for example, "the lamp is in working order, but is switched off" or "there is no lamp in the room")."

The consequent here "pointing out someone is wrong because they're a non-native speaker" has more than the one antecedent given in your example. i.e. A racist could make that comment and a non-racist could make it too.

I'm not getting involved in that. Maybe his claim is ridiculous or not. Maybe you and Chris understand Zelensky better or not. I'm just commenting on the complaint. Carry on.

So, in the video Herp-a-durp stepped on another dude's head and that counts `as a score, I get it. As for the connection to politics, is this how you decide which laws get passed in 'Murica? Party members step on each other's heads and those with the least brain damage get to make the laws? ...Plausible.

You were criticising his method of argument and suggesting he's a dishonest interlocutor, which is ad hom, because you were attacking him personally rather than his argument.

(As per the basic definition:

Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.)

https://www.google.com/search?q=ad+hominem&oq=ad+hominem&aqs=chrome..69i57.2566j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That's not to say you broke any rules. But he's right on that point.

...and then the irony of you trying to prove why your interpretation is correct by prompting that those non-native English speakers you argue with would "clearly understand" in the way you do if they had only understood the English language better. Almost kind of racist in a way of an Ad Hominem now is it? — Christoffer

His retort wasn't racist in any way (he's a non-native speaker himself far as I know and being a non-native speaker isn't a race anyhow).

Can some other mod please enlighten me on why Benkei is still a mod on this forum? It's like a judge who's breaking the law — Christoffer

If you think Benkei broke a rule, PM me with details of the rule he broke. I don't see any rules being broken by anyone here, certainly not racism or anything remotely of the sort. Finally, please use PMs or the Feedback category for complaints in future. Thanks.

Leaving that aside, the guy seems to be a scumbag from just about every angle. If you do vote for him, for the love of Yahweh at least have the decency to lie about it afterwards.

My sense of U.S. politics is it's kind of like WWE where your guy taking a beating / the other guy winning is always very painful. This is borne out by my (limited) experience on U.S. politics forums, which are dominated by "Fuck you, we're gonna kick your ass" type posturing, likely supercharged in recent years by Trumpism. Also, from a practical viewpoint, with the Senate in his hands, Biden can continue to nominate Dem judges to the lower courts and pretty much ignore the House which, with a wafer thin majority, will mostly consist of Republican factions eating each other alive and nothing getting done. That's a big win for Dems. So, maybe at the margins wavering Republicans may have not bothered voting out of complacency, but wouldn't the type that care a lot about having a red Supreme Court also probably be team players that are going to vote pro-red / anti-blue every chance they get both to get the boot into the other side and due to hot-button issues like abortion etc? Like, if you're cheering that abortion rights have been curtailed by the SC, you really don't want a pro-choicer representing you at local level, correct?

All's this to say that imo the election result wasn't so much about your average Republican or Dem voters but independents who were put off by the raft of shitty Republican candidates Trump successfully pushed for and thought the Dems the lesser of two evils, i.e. moderates that would normally lean Republican in mid-terms set against a backdrop of serious economic uncertainty and an unpopular President but were given reason not to this time. And if that's the case, the absolute last red ticket you want is Orange Man redux, especially seeing as for some unfathomable reason, the equally awful De Santis seems acceptable to most Americans and would probably have an excellent chance against sleepy Joe (who seems intent on ignoring his curtain call). So, the danger here is you hand Biden a second term and the House back to the Dems without them having to do anything but sit back and watch Trump implode. Maybe a really bad recession saves you, but that's your only Hail Mary.

Are you sad yet? I'm really trying to make you sad here... :halo:

Deleted it for low quality. You don't have absolute freedom of speech in a moderated forum. Anyhow, the above seems to be an edited version but seeing as you reposted without asking, I'm closing this. Please don't repost deleted discussions in future. If you can't accept moderation, you're better off somewhere else.