• 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle
  • Using the terms “telemetry” and “spyware” interchangeably makes the former seem more nefarious and the latter less nefarious. I understand where you’re coming from but I wouldn’t want to see the term “spyware” diluted to include anonymised data about how users are using product features.

    That’s not to say telemetry data is fine or that a company might claim to only use telemetry data isn’t actually using spyware.



  • Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole

    I’ve never argued or suggested this. I’m enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(

    people are probably amenable if you use the right approach

    Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.

    your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them

    And I think this is the core contradiction in what you’re trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you’re gay (let’s say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You’re being discriminated against.

    For the record I wouldn’t yell “Fuck you Bill!” in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say “Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I’m not saying Bill shouldn’t be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP:

    if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief



  • you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it.

    Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.

    So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?


  • g0nz0li0@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mltime for a rebrand!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The republican platform is fucked up, but if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief.

    …is the part of your argument I am responding to. Saying “don’t five people a hard time for supporting fucked up things” is pretty fucked up.


  • g0nz0li0@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mltime for a rebrand!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Wrong again:

    During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women’s ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother’s health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and “narrowly tailored” to protecting mothers’ health.[7] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state’s interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother’s life or health



  • g0nz0li0@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mltime for a rebrand!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not familiar with those states but after a quick search:

    Florida has an an abortion plan that permits prosecution of a women as a third degree felony in some circumstances.

    Kansas prohibits abortions after 22 weeks and “a woman who seeks an abortion will be given state-mandated propaganda designed to change her mind. She will then have to look at an ultrasound image, wait 24 hours and pay for the procedure out of her own pocket.”

    “Not as bad” isn’t really a W.


  • g0nz0li0@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mltime for a rebrand!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can’t just paint them all as evil as you imagine

    Perfectly illustrates my point. I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”. Branding that as insulting or hateful is just attempting to dodging accountability by disingenuously claiming victim status.

    Party allegiance aside, it’s unreasonable and hypocritical for anyone to support a platform with an agenda that will directly and adversely impacts broad swathes of society with an expectation that they will not be directly or adversely impacted by their actions and decisions (which in this case is something as innocuous as simply drawing criticism).


  • g0nz0li0@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mltime for a rebrand!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Your comment implies that people take insult when someone calls them out for supporting a platform that - just to take one example - decides it’s proper to prosecute victims of crime because they also think the government should have jurisdiction over woman’s body and a say in their health and wellbeing.

    Is them taking umbrage to valid crisis the real issue here?