133arc585

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

ISPs coming out and bothering you cause you pirate stuff? Never heard of it.

You must have the distinct privilege of not living in the USA or several other Western countries.

I’d jump ship immediately if I got one such letter.

If you mean jump ship off that ISP, there's nothing you can do. You can go to another ISP (if there even is one in your area), who will do the exact same thing. You can jump ship entirely and not have internet, I guess.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Seems entirely unrelated.

The issue with .ml domains was only its free offerings, not its paid ones. And you can thank Meta for that. They sued the registrar managing several ccTLDs, including .ml, .ga, .gq, .cf, and .tk. Meta even goes so far to fabricate a conspiracy theory about the registrar being part of a cybercriminal ring.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

Colloquial use of that word is not related to its technical use to describe a female dog in dog breeding. Colloquial use of the word is precisely driven by misogyny. Don't try to play that game, it's dishonest. Do you think the homophobic f-slur is acceptable because, after all, it is a technical term relating to bound wood fuel? If not, why is that not acceptable, but the one you're using is? Historical linguistic justification for a word whose colloquial use has not been related to its historical meaning for a very long time is dishonest.

By "otherwise discriminatory" I meant discriminatory in ways other than the two (sexism, ableism) that I explicitly mentioned; can you not think of other ways to discriminate? "Otherwise discriminatory" can include words that are specificaly xenophobic or racist, or homophobic. I didn't bother doing a full inventory when I was illustrating a point.

I find casual use of opaque blocklists without any second thought to their impact disturbing.

It's not opaque. The entire block list regex is publicly visible for every single instance. In fact, it's in the page source of every single page you load. You're simply uninformed. Moreover, if you think there was no second thought to it's impact, you're yet again uninformed. There was (and has been) discussion about it amongst developers and (early) users, and discussion continues; in fact, there was a post about it with large engagement maybe three days ago.

I am not sure how I feel about enforcing a block list (and I said that in my previous comment), but one thing it does do, repeatedly, is illuminate how little people think about offensive things they say. Interestingly, more often than not, people would rather defend their use of misogynist language than consider using literally any other word in English or another language.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's in the blocked word list because it's misogynist. The fact that it's used so commonly with no second thought is disturbing.

I don't know if I agree with the blocked word list being enforced, but I definitely have a problem with rampant misogynist, ableist, and otherwise discriminatory language used with no thought.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Was that supposed to be some sort of joke or do you actually not know Orwell himself was: a rapist, a snitch, a plagiarist, and a racist? One man, four horrible qualities.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I see what you're saying but I still disagree. If you are making that much money and living paycheck to paycheck, it's your own fault and is a lack of self control or money management knowledge. If you're making $7.25 an hour and living paycheck to paycheck, no amount of self control and money management knowledge will mean you aren't living paycheck to paycheck. Living paycheck to paycheck is a personal failing when you're in the top 1% of earners in the country.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I meant not popular as in they don't have as much foot traffic as they did a few decades ago. Many exist, but the number of malls that don't feel "dead" is pretty low in my experience.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Mullvad does not allow port forwarding.

They announced on May 29th that they would not allow new port forwarding. On July 1st, all existing port forwarding was disabled. Since then, Mullvad no longer allows port forwarding.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

No. You are building a massive strawman. I never even said a word about medics.

I guess you don't understand how this works. I'm not building a strawman, as I'm literally describing the Geneva Convention's justification for why your opinion is nonsensical to hold. I'm simply asking you to extend your "logic" to an identical situation that, in my opinion, is more enlightening as to why your argument is faulty. They are both non-combat roles, and the justification for protecting them in a war setting is identical.

You conveniently ignore everything Russia has done. Tell me, is Russia following Geneva conventions and Nuremberg principles?

I see that you don't actually care to have an honest discussion. I haven't mentioned anything Russia has done; I haven't justified anything Russia has done. You think me pointing out that Ukraine has done something wrong, and that your defense of that is bad, is somehow equivalent to defending Russia.

It seems, unless you want to try to actually respond to the points I've raised, that you're content in your disagreement with the Geneva Convention. As such, your faked concern about Russia's supposed violation of the Geneva Convention is just that: faked.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I think there are many other versions of the same story that aren't plagiarized, aren't written by horrible humans, and are also better written.

Personally, I'm fond of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. I haven't read it, but you can skip Orwell's plagiarizing and go to the source and read Yevgeny Zamyatin's We.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You can thank Meta for that. They sued the registrar managing several ccTLDs, including .ml, .ga, .gq, .cf, and .tk. Meta even goes so far to fabricate a conspiracy theory about the registrar being part of a cybercriminal ring; they feign concern and wreak havoc.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don't have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: "yeah but Russia does bad".

Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.

view more: ‹ prev next ›