517
Russia Is Trying to Leave the Internet and Build Its Own
(www.scientificamerican.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
517 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
59967 readers
5035 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's fine, of course. Don't debate/discuss anything you don't feel like debating, but you shouldn't make a straw man out of the position of people you disagree with or be uncivil.
It's not clear what exactly you're accusing me of. Mindlessly parroting other peoples' views?
If what I said is so weak and easily refuted it's a little strange that the best rebuttal you can come up with is "you're wrong".
There's a grain of truth here, but it's kind of beside the point and you're making some odd assumptions. Why do you think you know what I'm concerned about?
Once again, while I don't doubt we also have fundamental philosophical differences, the current disagreement (from my side anyway) is about practical ways to deal with the issue. From a purely practical standpoint, I don't think individual citizens owning guns is going to be effective or worth the tradeoff to prevent the kinds of risks you mentioned. I could be far left, I could be liberal, I could be far right, I could be a centrist: none of that would have any bearing on something that comes down to the question of "is this an effective tool for the task".
I'm not an anarchist, so guessed correctly there. It's not because I love governments, institutions, central authority or because I'm opposed to anarchy (or any philosophy/approach that isn't hurting others). My personal philosophy is do whatever you want as long as it's not harming other people/animals (I'm a Utilitiarian). So I'm pro whatever method leads to the most happiness/least suffering.
I was hoping to avoid getting deep enough into this that I have to break out the block quotes myself, but oh well. Here we are.
I don't think I've been any less charitable than you and weirdwallace75, though. It's not like any of us are steel-manning each others points. And why would we? There's no benefit in this context. It'd just be a longer route to the conclusion that I jumped to early, that we fundamentally disagree and that an internet comments argument with strangers is not going to be sufficient to change any minds. If we were all friends, and frequently spent time discussing things in person, and trusted each other, then sure, maybe we could make some progress. But we're not, and we don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sort of? See the definition of talking points. Not necessarily mindless, but certainly low-effort and static. Like, I've seen all of them before. Literally every single anti-gun talking point. They didn't get me to change my mind the first dozen times, so why would they now? They simply do not address the reasons that I am in favor of a well-armed society. As an anarchist, I care about how power is allocated. I want power to be widely distributed, not concentrated. And guns are tools of power.
I didn't say that they were easily refuted. Just as I don't find the talking points convincing, I don't expect you to find the usual responses to them convincing either. We'd just get bogged down in side arguments. However, I also wasn't inclined to concede the point. Which leaves us at "you're wrong".
Because you said it yourself? You likened planning for fascist violence to planning for the rapture.
You're not. I'm certain enough of it to bet money. Unless this has all been a very weird acting exercise.
It does, though. Your worldview affects your perception of the problem, and your perception of the potential tools for dealing with it. It affects what you pay attention to, what you learn, and what you dismiss. We disagree both on the level of severity and on the effectiveness of each tool, due to our differences in worldview.
I'm not really talking about utilitarianism vs egoism or whatever else, though that could play a small part. I'm more referring to the totality of our worldviews, our mental models of how everything works.
I was hoping to avoid getting deep enough into this that I have to break out the block quotes myself, but oh well. Here we are.
I don't think I've been any less charitable than you and weirdwallace75, though. It's not like any of us are steel-manning each others points. And why would we? There's no benefit in this context. It'd just be a longer route to the conclusion that I jumped to early, that we fundamentally disagree and that an internet comments argument with strangers is not going to be sufficient to change any minds. If we were all friends, and frequently spent time discussing things in person, and trusted each other, then sure, maybe we could make some progress. But we're not, and we don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sort of? See the definition of talking points. Not necessarily mindless, but certainly low-effort and static. Like, I've seen all of them before. Literally every single anti-gun talking point. They didn't get me to change my mind the first dozen times, so why would they now? They simply do not address the reasons that I am in favor of a well-armed society. As an anarchist, I care about how power is allocated. I want power to be widely distributed, not concentrated. And guns are tools of power.
I didn't say that they were easily refuted. Just as I don't find the talking points convincing, I don't expect you to find the usual responses to them convincing either. We'd just get bogged down in side arguments. However, I also wasn't inclined to concede the point. Which leaves us at "you're wrong".
Because you said it yourself? You likened planning for fascist violence to planning for the rapture.
You're not. I'm certain enough of it to bet money. Unless this has all been a very weird acting exercise.
It does, though. Your worldview affects your perception of the problem, and your perception of the potential tools for dealing with it. It affects what you pay attention to, what you learn, and what you dismiss. We disagree both on the level of severity and on the effectiveness of each tool, due to our differences in worldview.
I'm not really talking about utilitarianism vs egoism or whatever else, though that could play a small part. I'm more referring to the totality of our worldviews, our mental models of how everything works.
Like I said, no one's twisting your arm here.
I can't speak for anyone but myself but if you look at my posts and your posts, I think we can easily see this really isn't true at all.
You made a caricature of your opponents position - they don't like guns because "guns bad" when obviously there's a lot more nuance than that. I challenge you to link a case where I did anything similar. Just as an example. You've also made a bunch of quite uncharitable assumptions with little evidence, like the "talking points" thing.
By the definition you linked, your accusation is just plain factually wrong. Nothing was prepared in advance, I'm (obviously) not following a script.
Also, this looks like a contradiction:
So they're low effort, static, you (and presumably others that agree with your position) have heard/seen them all before and yet they aren't easily refuted? That really doesn't make sense. I have my own pet cause and there are very common responses I've seen before too: as a result, I can crush them with almost no effort because I know exactly where the conversation is going.
If you're so familiar with the subject, have seen all the arguments before but can't muster strong counter arguments, link reputable neutral sources to support your position, etc then maybe you should reevaluate whether the ground you're on is actually solid. Lest you be tempted to turn that line of argument around on me: don't forget, I never claimed to be super well-informed and familiar with it.
I likened a scenario where individual fascists are apparently wandering around randomly killing other citizens while the government/police don't do anything to the rapture, because this pretty much implies a complete breakdown of civilization or a situation where having a gun isn't going to help you anyway because the fascists have the might of the military on their side.
I didn't say something like fascists gaining political power was that level of implausible. Unfortunately, it actually seems all too plausible: although the killing random lefties/liberals en masse is very improbable. Like I already said, even if you look at one of the most extreme examples in history such as Nazi Germany it still didn't happen like that.
The point is that my position on this is completely independent of any politics. It's like if the question was "Is the best tool for slicing bread a spoon or a knife": would it matter if I'm politically left or right? No: there's a fact of the matter about what tool is effective for slicing bread, there's enough evidence to show knives are clearly more effective there and if my politics affect me accepting that and I argue the spoon side then I'm being irrational.
There are lots of subjects where politics do have an influence and philosophical points where there's a less clear answer but here we're talking about practical effects from taking a certain approach. Politics should have little bearing there.
Huh? I don't get your response. Perhaps you're not familiar with Utilitarianism? It's a moral philosophy based on maximizing utility which is usually defined as maximizing pleasure and/or minimizing suffering. This is in contrast to other moral philosophies that might say something like "lying to people is wrong", the Utilitarian would only look at it in terms of the actual effects and would have no problem accepting that lying was good if you could show that overall lying maximized utility.
So assuming the facts are on your side here, this actually makes convincing Utilitarians of stuff very easy. You just have to show taking a certain approach results in higher utility and the Utilitarian will be on your side and won't say anything like "It's just wrong to do that". So if you could show me evidence that arming citizens actually results in less suffering/more happiness overall (and we can safely assume fascists taking over and roaming around slaughtering liberals/left leaning people is going to increase suffering/decrease happiness) then I'll not only be able to accept it. I'll be in your pro-gun camp.
Alright, I've hit my limit for dealing with bad faith argument. Maybe you were genuinely trying to be decent, but in any case I'm done.
Haha. That's rich coming from someone that has yet to actually address the substance of my position. Literally the only thing you've done so far is dissemble and use bad faith tactics like the straw man fallacy. While it's possible I'm wrong/misguided I've stated what I believe and explained why I believe it. Discussion isn't possible when the other party never engages though.
I'm not sure why you'd be posturing deep in a comment thread like this, but for your own sake I actually hope that's what you're doing. Otherwise this is a super yikes level of self delusion and eventually you're going to run into the hard wall of reality and it's not going to feel very good. These tactics don't work against people that have a clue.