News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:ISPs Should Not Police Online Speech – No Matter How Awfu... by ToucanLoucan on Wednesday August 30, 2023 @01:30PM (#37325707)
> That is a failure of mental health and the direction of psychology in general where by they are teaching people that everyone, everywhere must affirm you, must support you, and everything you do is perfect.

No, it's really not. It's what happens when you live within a society where far too many people in positions of authority either deny that people like you exist entirely, or fully accept you do and want to limit your access to healthcare, to resources, to gather in public, to your rights, what have you.

You cannot therapy or mental health your way out of the fact that a significant portion of society wants you to cease being the person you are.

> No longer are we teaching people "sticks and stones can break my bones but words should never hurt me"

Yeah you know how much I heard this tripe as a kid who was bullied basically continuously from the 4th grade to graduation? I heard it from every manner of school counselor to (vice) principal to teachers, and all of them, every single one, absolutely believed it and wanted to help me, and it doesn't change the fact that being subjected to daily psychological torture for roughly 8 years of my developmental life has taken yet another 8 years of intense therapy to work through the myriad of issues I have developed as a result of it, and even now, I am not free of it and never will be in all likelihood. I will go to my grave with issues around my self worth, my self image, my less-than-stellar social skills, on and on.

I cannot imagine dealing with that all through school, and THEN graduating into a larger society that not only doesn't rebuke that, but actively encourages it. Where your given bully is no longer the high school football captain, but a septuagenarian who has never worked a proper job in his life who is determined to mine support for his public policies on the back of making people who hate you feel good about hating you and encouraging them to continue doing so for literally no reason.

> So your are partisan

Everyone is.

> and operate under the belief that only the "right" bullies people,

I didn't make that claim and I'm not going to litigate it.

> No bad tactics, only bad targets right. If they don't agree with your political dogma then bullying is perfectly fine right, they deserve it...

"Political dogma" here being that all human beings have an equal right to exist without threats of violence? I mean yeah, I guess if that's the thing people don't agree with I am largely okay with them being bullied.

> Let me ask, do you believe someone refusing to use neo-pronouns is "bullying" and that in return anyone that refuses to use neo-pronouns should be bullied themselves, or banned from society?

Personally I don't like neo-pronouns. Like if someone wants to be called that, that's their business, I will probably avoid speaking to them when possible. I think the set of he/she/they covers everyone perfectly effectively and anything beyond that should strictly be an opt-in. However, I also wouldn't purposely go out of my way to not use someone's pronouns in front of them to make some idiotic point. I would just respect it to the degree that anyone is deserving of respect, and probably avoid them in the future.

> that is perfectly acceptable, and not at all what I am talking about. Boycotts are fine. There is a big difference between boycotts and cancelations....That is no longer OK. But that is a common tactic for those on the authoritarian left which you seem to support

I mean, what's the line here? I can tell people I know not to associate with someone or something, and then they tell their friends, that's still okay? At what point does it become not okay? What if down the line of 4 friends happens to be a vendor that supplies that company, and they decide to cancel their contract? Is that cancel culture now because a company is involved? What if enough of my friends are upset enough and publicly talk about it, and of their own volition, a company decides to cancel that contract based on not wanting the bad PR? At one point have I crossed from Boycott to Cancelling? Or is the it determined post-hoc based on the fallout? Because like... in my mind at least, they're the same thing. One is just more associated with a certain type of community.

> this such hyperbolic virtue signalling non-sense on the level of "words are violence", where by "exterminate" is in reality no "affirming, and accepting everything about my life as wonderful, virtuous, and pure". Certain segments of the population seem to be so fragile that if someone says to them "Your lifestyle is a sin" that means they are being exterminated...

Moving past that words absolutely have psychological consequences especially when applied en masse and over time as outlined above: it also matters when the "certain segments of the population" wield much larger institutional power than the others. You say all of this is just "words words harmless words from people who call me a sinner" like we didn't just deal with, here in the US, a massive court decision that granted abortion rights being overturned by judges appointed by theologically minded people to achieve that specific goal. This isn't even theoretical anymore, this is happening. Right now. There are now laws in place that directly contribute to making women's healthcare more dangerous because of the perception of it being "sinful" to receive otherwise, so don't tell me I shouldn't worry and that it's just words, when those same words not even forty years ago were used to condemn victims of the AIDS epidemic to death because it was "God's will" or whatever garbage.

Re:ISPs Should Not Police Online Speech – No Matter How Awfu... by phpisthebest on Wednesday August 30, 2023 @02:27PM (#37326674)
>>here in the US, a massive court decision that granted abortion rights being overturned by judges

no in fact we did not deal with this, nor was that the decision.

First and foremost Roe did not grant abortion rights, it granted privacy rights in a weird hamfisted way that only applied to abortion... It was a terrible precinct that even many left legal scholars (include Ruth Bader Ginsburg) rejected.

The reversal of Roe also did not remove any abortion or any other rights from anyone, it returned the issue to the proper place, State governments. Of which the vast majority had/have a more expansive view of abortion that the limits under Roe.

Thirdly the left had 30+ years to take the issue out of the hands of the hamfisted Roe by passing an actual law to address it, but chose not do because the democratic party wanted that boogeyman for elections (and still does) so they did not want to resolve the conflict at all, they want the issue not the resolution. They wrongly believe the court "would never" reverse itself... the screwed around, and found out.

The level if wrong information out there around the subject of Roe is crazy to me.

>>There are now laws in place that directly contribute to making women's healthcare more dangerous because of the perception of it being "sinful" to receive otherwise

100% wrong... You are clearly indoctrinated into a political ideology completely removed from reality

>>Everyone is.

I despise political parties. All of them. Political parties are for rich men north of Richmond, who all just wanna have total control of what you think, and what you do...

Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, you name the party and I reject it.

"political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." -- George Washington.

Re:ISPs Should Not Police Online Speech – No Matter How Awfu... by freejazz on Wednesday August 30, 2023 @05:14PM (#37329241)
>First and foremost Roe did not grant abortion rights, it granted privacy rights in a weird hamfisted way that only applied to abortion... It was a terrible precinct that even many left legal scholars (include Ruth Bader Ginsburg) rejected.

An utterly disingenuous and politically motivated misstelling