• 1 Post
  • 300 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle

  • Solumbran@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldFlirting vs harassment
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 days ago

    While obviously anyone can be harassed by anyone, it’s stupid to think that on average, an action by a man is the same as an action by a woman, in societies drowned in rape culture and toxic masculinity.

    If a man touches you, yeah, statistically it has more chances of being harassment than if a woman touches you. Doesn’t mean that other cases aren’t possible, but statistically that’s how it is.




  • That’s a lot of ignorance.

    The ban defines social media in an extremely broad way. It’s basically almost every website with a social aspect to it, comments under a news article would apply. Not only does it create a huge issue to have an unclear definition up to the interpretation of whomever will be taking advantage of it, it’s also not a good measure to protect anyone. Kids that are feeling isolated because of, for example, their gender, identity, or looks, and who were using social media anonymously as an escape, are the ones that will struggle.

    And what do these bad effects cost? Massive, population-wide ID checks, that will need to be uploaded online, and France is soooo secure with their data breaches every ~3 days. So your ID information is in the wild, which will be heaven for hackers (who will consequently try even more to cause data breaches).

    Social media are, in general, horrible. You want to make laws, make laws that extremely strictly ban all the shit that facebook, twitter and youtube and the likes do. Ban toxic algorithms (or algorithms altogether, no one needs anything else than a good search engine), make big platforms responsible for hate speech and actually punish them, and make it a huge, in-depth criminal investigation with extremely harsh punishments when a platform like Facebook is found to hide and protect pedocriminal rings. At the same time, increase education budgets a lot and teach kids how things work instead of letting them be thrown in the jungle with no clue what’s going on.

    Also, you think that a 15-years old with no social media experience is going to be safe online? That’s doesn’t make sense. Make a 70 years old suddenly use the internet and they’ll also be lost, it’s not just about age but about technology literacy.





  • At first, when you see people criticizing the .ml people, you think it’s exaggerated or a stereotype.

    Then they come bringing obsolete russian propaganda from the bottom of the ass of nowhere, and you change your mind.

    I can’t believe that even the world war propaganda, where news would say things like “the enemy bullets don’t kill and bounce off of our soldiers while they are sipping tea”, was better done that what this post tries to do.

    Now waiting for some random absurd reply from op telling me that I’m an nazi supporter because I don’t support the fascist genocidal invader or something. ¯\(ツ)




  • It’s funny how everyone that tries to defend the use of AI, other than deny the fact that most evidence (and common sense/basic understanding of AIs) points to the idea that it’s just negative, always avoid the subject of environment.

    Even if you assumed that you get the same result with Claude or whatever in 6 seconds, and with your brain in five minutes… Is the end of humanity and a massive extinction event worth those 5 minutes?

    Defending AI while there are literally news popping out right now about heat waves being more violent than ever recorded and killing thousands of people per day in countries that had no problems with heat a few decades ago, is extremely selfish and self-centered. And the only justification is “it’s a bit faster and easier”. Okay.





  • Yeah you’re typically the kind of case that I was referencing.

    You’re denying a scientific consensus based on a couple isolated “studies”. Cherrypicking is not going to lead to any reasonable result.

    And then you just start doing some dietary whataboutism, which is something I had yet to witness. Carbs could be deadly, it wouldn’t change the fact that meat is bad for health.

    You’re typically in the second category of what I was mentioning about alcoholics here, the category that refuses to face reality and goes to delude themselves into even believing the opposite of reality, that their addiction is actually good for health.

    And on top of that, you conveniently ignored the part where I mention that murdering sentient beings for your personal health and comfort is a pretty immoral take. Once again, not surprised.