snackbugs

You're being confronted with a truth about the clear definition of hate speech, and you're resisting moving forward because you intuitively sense the contradiction that your own belief might pose to that. This is where you need to be brave and get past that.

How is your life any harder to live because the parent comment was made? How has any positive human quality you innately have been refuted by the comment?

There is a clear definition of hate speech. It's not as amorphous as you need it to be in order to protect your ego.

What can be done to correct this definition? What should be adjusted?

You're defining dehumanization biologically, when in usage the term is overloaded with another definition that refers to depriving others of dignity, individuality, and other positive human qualities.

To say that another doesn't deserve to be recognized with those positive human qualities is at the root of saying that they don't deserve to exist.

People keep saying that hate speech isn't defined clearly. It is, but these people have just never had to interface with it and have never cared to learn the boundaries.

Why haven't they had to interface with it? Because they have privileged positions in society, so hate speech has never been directed at them. Their lives have never been made harder to live by someone else in an influential position saying they don't deserve to exist.

It does indeed imply just that. You're abstracting the impulse to eliminate other groups away from that fact that it comes from a perspective of supremacy: the idea that your type of human is more deserving of existing than a foreign human.

Hate speech is made in full faith by a group that has dominance and power to influence others to harm groups who live under that dominance and power. How many gradations do you think there are between the two?

Libertarian is strictly and accurately characterized as right wing, whether you like the aesthetics and baggage of that or not.

Which right wing groups are not advocating for things that actively harm working people and minorities? Which leftist groups are out to harm entire pluralities of people out of indifference (at best) or cruelty (at worst)?

I'm asking in good faith because I honestly don't know what groups are being referred to when people say "neither side is innocent". I don't see the dichotomy that is being constructed with this argument.

Right wing and white supremacist groups exist to further societal sorting and ethnic cleansing implicitly and explicitly depending on the values of the particular group. To not see this as immediately threatening to the safety of pluralities of people is absolutely a subjective evaluation.

I personally don't think any state spy organization is funded or directed by people making objective decisions. They're not technocratic institutions, even if it feels nice to imagine they are.

That is currently how things work, and if you were to topple the current system and try to do the exact same thing over again you will get the same result in a couple of decades: a few entrenched aerospace firms with deep connections to congress on corporate welfare and eye-popping flight cycle costs.

No, I don't.

It's a contemporary euphemism for "trickle down", the long term trend of which has been emphatically untrue.

>That's probably happened to at least 50% of people

This and every other word in your reply is in complete bad faith. Have fun posting here.

No, literally threw fits on public television in plain view of people who had lost their jobs without severance or unemployment assistance. But keep insisting that shitting your pants when a homeless person asks you for change is a normal and human reaction.

Those financial workers whined and threw fits to receive federal bailouts while everyone else's futures and livelihoods were on fire with no chance of the same white-glove treatment. The banal dichotomy you're trying to illustrate here is just a rationalization for sorting humanity by their wealth.

This kind of argument is less of a rationalization and more of public relations spin. It ignores the increase in consumer spending that comes with raising wages. In fact, it completely depends on skating over that fact.

It's helpful in this case to imagine that there is a majority of people who work in industries other than tech and finance.

The sysadmin field has always seemed more conservative in my experience. When I hang out with them or spend time in online spaces where they talk, water cooler discussions wander into things that seem informed by right-leaning perspectives. I feel like many sysadmins would proudly and happily scab or cross picket lines.

Check out HackMUD.

Not only is that historically incorrect, but it's also a confession of a tolerance for detaining a specific population on ideological, non-criminal pretenses.

"It's different when we do it."

Ideologically there is no difference to previous uses of the term. Historically it refers to concentration camps of the second Boer War where over 150,000 people died in camps which concentrated specific settler populations in a manner that made the thinning of their population a foregone conclusion.

If it evokes the use of the concept you dislike, rethink your moral stance on it. Not the phrasing of the concept.

We're living in a period where real events are as absurd and as brain-breakingly bizarre as satire. It makes satire less of a release of tension and more of a depressing reminder.

Satire doesn't make you laugh when you can barely write an Onion headline that isn't only slightly expanded from reality.

This itself seems like an imprecise argument. If there are well-known laws against doing something that has gone unpunished so far, is it then legal?

If the compromise we have to make is that bad, it's definitely worth considering a more fundamental problem with the concept of employment as we know it.

I disagree; I think that most people would consider whether or not the guillotine is being used in service of justice, against cruelty to the powerless by the powerful.

In your opinion, what is the perfect number of laws anyone should have? 10^4? 10^5?

For instance?

Dogs were bred with this friendliness to be willing laborers with their own safety being a secondary concern to doing a job given to them. Think of how quickly and eagerly this would be used by those who want exploitable labor from humans.

Perhaps. But it certainly is yet another incremental step, among many others, back towards that dystopic vision.

These lab environments are useful for studying and prepping for industry certification exams like the CCNA, LPIC, MCSE and so on.

That homelab sub has a big population of people who feel personal empowerment or hobby satisfaction as either the secondary or primary utility to exam prep. Some even to the complete exclusion of exam prep.