Tlaloc_Temporal

I’m 50-50 on this. Peaceful transition of power is about respecting the decision of the people. A reasonable reason to buck the peaceful transition would be if it didn’t align with the will of the people, but that will is so obfusicated and twisted that I can’t tell what it even is anymore. If you have an issue with the transition, you should have an issue with the process that got you there. Bucking only the transition isn’t attacking the issue, it’s throwing a tantrum because you lost.

A miscarriage of justice isn’t solved with a pardon, it needs systemic changes. The rules are wrong, and ignoring them sometimes won’t make things right. What I would respect is rebuilding the system to be more representative and less able to be twisted. Gerrymandering, conflicts of interest, voting availability, lobbying, voter knowledge, even the journalism industry as a whole; there are lots of huge problems out there, ignoring those resorting to an armed “nuh uh” at the last moment is stupid.

That said, installing a dictator has never gone well, and being petty and stupid is probably worth avoiding that. It’s probably worth quite a bit more really. So I wouldn’t like it, but I really couldn’t complain.

I’d say a Control Panel, I miss the plethora of authoritive knowledge and settings for every program, device, driver, network, user, and a dozen more things besides, all findable by browsing and not remembering dozens of commands. Of course I’d miss that either way, because Control Panel has been gutted every new version of windows since XP, but it was once nice.

The Start menu context menu, or SUPER+X, is still nice, although mostly for avoiding poor UI choices and slow menus. The fact that many useful options are guaranteed to be there on every windows machine is nice though.

And I would also say Event Viewer, despite how incredibly clunky it is to use. Having one place to check all system logs and track crashes of all kinds was quite useful.

Basically, windows at one point went out of it’s way to centralize settings and info, and that’s just not possible in Linux without a lot of setup.

I believe they’re talking about the W11 context menu, where most common options (like copy, paste, and delete) are replaced by icons that look almost identical to each other. They’re all soft rounded lines and have no defining features, which means you need to stop and parse the icon twice for every cut & paste. They also change position based on which options are available, so you can’t memorize the locations, and since delete is one of the options, I wouldn’t trust my memory.

Most of the interesting options like edit, run as administrator, open file location, readable copy paste options, or installed options like Edit with Notepad++ or 7zip > are hidden behind a Show more Options option, which just opens the window 10 context menu. Same styling and everything.

Basically, everything about the W11 context menu slows me down and nothing about it is more usable or helpful.

The fingers aren’t the bottleneck, it’s the brain. I type just as fast with two fingers as with ten.

Where are you getting silence from? If speaking to an entire nation is a right, why don’t I have that opportunity?

Hate speech and calls for violence are already exceptions to freedom of speech. You know, things that can cause irreparable harm. Blatant lies from government officials can also cause harm, yet you would say any impairment of a politician’s ability to say literally anything is “silencing them”.

I fully support your right to say almost anything as a citizen, but not as a doctor, teacher, lawyer, or other professional with power. A doctor selling snake oil to their patients shouldn’t be a doctor, a teacher shouldn’t be preseting flat earth as the truth, a lawyer shouldn’t be giving poor council for their own benefit, and a politician shouldn’t be spreading egregious lies to their constituents.

The method I proposed was a response to another method (modifying freedom of speech), which I thought was better, as it could leave freedom of speech intact as is. I then immediately point out that this method would still have issues, because determining truth is hard. Passing judgment on even the most ridiculously well supported scientific facts is something basically all courts shy away from, and I don’t think the currect political landscape is capable of attempting reasonably unbiased legislation something so central to our culture. I wonder if such a determination is even possible to make reasonably in the style of government we’ve used for the last few centuries.

Where in this do you find a will to silence people I disagree with?

Not every private company can just do anything. ITAR still applies to SpaceX, the military industrial complex still wants political control over it’s suppliers, telecom corps still need to adhere to network standards, and COPPA was applied to YouTube (and they dealt with that terribly).

As much as capitalism wants to push everything as far as the system will bear, we can change that. We can say that social platforms need special care, or government officials need to be held to a higher standard. The issue at this point is political will, wich is growing in many directions at the moment.

The problem with specifically controlling speech is that we don’t have any system unbiased enough to be responsible for such a broad aspect of society. Some specific cases with some general rules might be useful though, but again I don’t trust our current systems to make good rules. This is all speculation on how to prevent public manipulation, and it probably won’t work well when used to root it out once established.

Is medical malpractice censorship? Legal malpractice? Financial malpractice? Engineering malpractice? Academic malpractice?

I don’t want to use government sanctions explicitly because government decisions tend toward political or popular outcomes, not reasonable outcomes. When a doctor SAs their patients, we don’t saction them; we revoke their medical license. Fiduciary negligence calls for a lawsuit, not direct government action (although lawsuits have issues as well).

I’m not advocating for community action either (I would hope individuals would check for integrity, but that obviously doesn’t happen enough ATM), shunning or excuding people from certain communities is something I want to avoid. This is definitely not excommunication (even if we broaden the term beyond it’s explicitly catholic meaning), I very much do not want to banish or otherwise impact affected persons’ quality of life. It’s simply about practising a privileged profession.

You should be able to say whatever you want without government censorship, but we shouldn’t be giving all ideas privileged platforms. Libel is a very difficult thing to prosecute for, but I think we need to challenge more publically broadcast statements. To broadcast as “News” or something authoritative would be a privilege, like practing medicine or law.

Even in this hypothetical situation, the definition of reasonable accuracy would have to be determined methodologically, as political entities and the public cannot be trusted to decide in good faith. That’s the crux of trying to implement public deplatforming; objective value judgments. We can get useably close with peer-reviewed papers, but it’s still vulnerable to political and monetary influence.

To summarize: I do not want to silence anyone, just restrict access to the official-looking megaphone and clipboard. Even then, how that access is restricted is a difficult problem considering the conflicting interests around it.

Excommunication? What? This is requiring journalistic integrity to work in journalism, just like how medical malpractice can make you lose your medical license or legal malpractice can get you disbarred. There is precidence for this system, and I chose it specifically to reduce punishments and make sure those affected can still make a living.

I even point out one of the big issues of truth being difficult to define, and how this system might just push the problem down the road, and wonder if the actual problem (politics becomming unbound by reality for political gain, or a loss of political integrity) can even be regulated at all.

Hmm? A creative limitation? How have I done that?

I’m advocating for maintaining freedom from government censorship by using an industry ban instead. Specifically in the realms of news and knowledge, not entertainment. I don’t think that impinges on any (currently held) right, democratic or not.

70% of the time, bloom is garbage, 25% of the time it’s garbage and is covering up other graphical issues. 5% of the time, it gives some nice depth to light and emphasizes brightness differences, even without HDR.

Already in effect. Lost of basic services require a mailing address, which means either rent or property taxes. Medical care often requires a job to grant insurance, and any chronic or ongoing illness is the definition of a subscription.

Instead of modifying freedom of speech, make large-scale lies jusification to banish someone from the industry, like sex-offenders and schools.

Still a bit vague and as always figuring out what’s true is hard and ajudicating truth is even harder, but any errors won’t be nearly as bad, and it would still be effective.

The core issue here is still agreeing on truth though. Can you define a method of ajudicating truth that can’t be misused by an overwhelming amount of bad-faith actors? Can you bind an organization to a method even if every member wants something else?

I think you missed the reasoning behind the “dead” part.

If the hammer doesn’t bounce when it hits, it’s not as lively, and lands like a dead body.

Well it does have a claw, but it specifically has the nail holder.

Large corporations are overly litigious. Individuals can’t afford to be litigious enough.

Did you know my profile picture is a Windows Vista background? I didn’t until a few months ago.

As AliasVortex@lemmy.world said, all parts of Factorio are mods, and can be enabled separately. The Base mod, which can’t be disabled has the vanilla game; the Quality and Elevated Rail mods, which are from the Space Age DLC but can be activated whenever; and the Space Age mod.

I don’t know which mod is responsible for changing science and recipes though. Coupd be either side.

rather destroy all life on earth than hurt The Economy.

Oh don’t worry, I have have issues with that too.

Thor summons lightning with Mjolnir

If you believe Thor is the cause of lightning, you might be more willing to ignore meteorology. If you believe the Aesir are actually divine and walk between the worlds, you might be more willing to believe that some people are descendants of them and thus superior.

Jesus needs to sacrifice himself on the cross in order to satisfy the Old Laws and get everyone into heaven

If you believe that blood sacrifices hold power, you might think that some people are performing them when they aren’t, or even perform them yourself.

If you believe the world will end, you might not be so concerned with maintaining it or even living in it.

My point is that making a habit of denying reality makes it easier to deny reality in the future, and even if one denial of reality is innocuous, later denials may not be. Bigots love to use religion to push racist, discriminatory, and abusive ideas, and the best way to defend against those ideas is to see how they align with reality. We can’t identify harmful acts if we can’t agree on the effect of an act, can we?

Anyway, the original topic was putting words in anti-theist’s mouths. There’s not even a generally accepted definition of anti-theism, with some being against organized religions, and others against monotheism specifically. To paint them all as opposite-christians is using a Zamboni as a brush.

I wouldn’t describe myself as an anti-theist, I’m not against the idea itself, it’s rather neat and might have been an important step in the development of human culture and thinking. I’m particularly interested in the old gods, like at gobekli tepe, or proto-devi and deva, or the bears and other beings that populate the oldest stories of the night sky. I might describe myself as a non-theist humanist: So long as it does good to the world, I don’t care in particular.

If you take a definition of religion that places something above the demonstrable world --the sacred supernatural-- we run into the issue of the world being sacrificed to intangible ideas, which is bad. This idea of the world being pointless in the face of something that cannot be proven is pretty central to most sects of western religions, and the ability to move people for an idea unconnected to reality is a fantastic way to gain power over them.

It’s this concept of unprovable authority that I find dangerous, and I think this is what is referred to with the theo in theism; the tyrant gods and political religious institutions of the west. It’s a very rough definition which may or may not apply elsewhere, but it’s probably what most english speakers are thinking about when you say god.

This is certainly what I’m thinking of when someones wants me to accept even the existence of a god: that they defy the limits of the world and thus deserve attention. The problem is that none of these beings have ever had any notable effect on the world, universally being spoken for by their followers.

You could argue for less-than-supernatural gods, like kings or pharoahs, or particularly respected people, or even certain animals, plants, or locations. In these instances, their effects can be directly investigated, and if any effects beyond those given by politics and popularity be found I would have no problem accepting them. I accept that we live in a shared reality, and thus I also accept anything that comports with it.

The opposite is also true; I’ll reject anything that doesn’t comport with reality. I consider anything that can make one ignore parts of reality to be dangerous and likely to cause harm, so I find myself at odds with most religions and directly against the idea of most gods, western or otherwise. It doesn’t matter how good the acts of a being are, I will not hold them as more than what is evident. A system of belief on the other hand, I might accept, if it doesn’t hold itself superior to reality or the world.

I can’t find any reference to antheist, but by your definition I am not one. I’m not anti-theist by your definition either. My belief is not guided by the supposed goodness of a being, simply their existence. It would be more accurate to call me an anti-delusionism-ist: against the practice of denying reality. That’s quite clunky though, and stops being true if a god is found to exist, although a lot of definitions and beliefs would change rapidly in that situation. Thus non-theist: I don’t care as long as you’re not hurting anyone.

I think Drag should ask more antitheists about their reasoning.

I am of the opinion that any willful ignorance of reality is dangerous, and most religions are organized and ritualized ignorance.

Most of them were just speculation when they were founded, and no one could fathom exactly how they were right or wrong. The difference is that now we can know better; we can fathom the depths of the universe and plot the edges of our ignorance.

This leads to a conflict between the intensly held beliefs of entite cultures and the systems we use to progress society. Thus the anti-intellectualism movement and conspiracy thinking, theocratic movements, and the willingness to deny truth.

I do not have the same issues with spiritual systems and religions that are willing to accept what we know about reality; but sadly those are in the vast minority. It’s less about being against gods in general, and more about being against the tyrant gods and authoritarian organizations that are willing to sacrifice reality on the altar of control and power.

So go ahead and make rituals, worldviews, and sacred meaning, but don’t let those cloud your vision of the world, and remember to love each other.