ah, my bad, that was two different responses, only the first line was directed at you.

i’ve edited the response to be clearer.

edit: for clarity

That’s a lot of assumptions about the poster but I can see how you got there.

Below is a response to the idea of supremacy in general, not a response to @[email protected]

That seems like a particularly stupid and relatively indefensible hill to die on, but I suppose if you are going to plant a supremacist flag, you haven’t really used well reasoned arguments to get there in the first place.

Why not just go with “I disagree with them to such a degree that I wish them and any like them, dead” ?

No need to base it on utterly and stupidly false claims.

how did you get to supremacist from that? genuine question

That’s one of the reasons why you get delayed or cancelled, over-budget projects that go nowhere. ( another big one is corruption and general financial shenanigans ).

if you throw a lot of money at a problem/project that doesn’t have reasonable management and competent understanding of where that money could work efficiently then you’re asking for trouble.

Destinating more resources to that quickens and makes better that process, though, incentivating people to work on it and test it.

That is charmingly naive, in my experience.

I’m not saying more money wouldn’t help, I’m saying throwing money at it isn’t generally a stand-alone solution, which is what i think the person you were replying to was trying to say.

Not sure how versed/willing you are to selfhost but I’ve heard good things about tube archivist.

There are also a bunch of ui’s for yt-dlp, though i can’t vouch for quality.

It’s somewhat of a catch, that’s generally how monopolistic moats work but you really shouldn’t be relying on google as a backup service for obscure videos you wish to keep.

I’ve no idea of the amount of lectures, guides, documentaries and other non-entertainment media that is available exclusively on youtube, but again it isn’t an archiving service.

They can, will and have deleted whole channels for various reasons, most of which were bullshit, if you find something you absolutely have to keep, download it.

That being said, the process of downloading, archiving and curating content on anything more than a trivial scale can be much more involved than it seems, especially if you want backups/redundancy.

I’ve never been a big youtube user so my opinion on this is coloured by the fact that i don’t have that much invested in the platform.

Literally any other form of entertainment.

Though the statement was to stop using it, not replace it.

I shouldn’t have anything to hide, but I’m part of a group the current fascist leadership in government want’s to eradicate, so hide I shall.

I agree and i think a lot of people who espouse “nothing to hide” as an approach haven’t actually thought it all the way through.

Then there’s the fascists, dictators, oligarchs and other all around shitbags who just want the control.

That said, I also feel like people acting like the remote server they are connected to is tracking what you do on it as some kind of surprise is so stupid. “Facebook is keeping track of the pictures I uploaded to it!!!” There’s a lot of stuff to complain about Facebook, google, or whoever, but them tracking stuff you send to them willingly isn’t one of them.

This always surprises me, i originally thought it was because people didn’t understand how these things work or how capitalist companies work.

More and more it seems like people don’t care until it affects them, which is somewhat understandable, it takes effort to care about this stuff and a lot of people will never be directly affected by the consequences.

What i do still think is that the general population has no idea the extent of what can be done with all of the information they are volunteering.

That’s very slowly changing but the usages of the data are also increasing at a much more rapid pace than before.

Oh yeah, the whole article could be reductively summed up as

“DeepSeek and all the other LLM services are almost as bad as each other, but we think deepseek is worse…because the Chinese government are known for doing bad things”.

The title is factual, if a little clickbaity.

Obviously keystrokes you submit to a website are submitted to the website.

This though, it’s not technically accurate, a lot of forms and input are done client side and then the resulting information is parceled up and sent to the server.

The actual keystroke data isn’t normally sent.

Though this article doesn’t go in to what kind of keystroke data is sent, if it was something more than just which keys in which order then that’s perhaps an indicator that it’s actively being collected for a reason, rather than just incidentally.

If you want to get really paranoid about such things it’s known that you can you can do interesting things with actual keystroke data.

Also, afaict none of the the non-chinese services have specified that they don’t do this.

i mean…yes? that is generally how search platforms work.

I wouldn’t recommend anybody use any google based stuff directly (or at all, if possible) but if you do, then sending the search query is generally what would happen.

Also fair.

If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry ?

edit : For clarification, i consider “If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry” to be a naive argument, at best, in any privacy conversation, but I’m not averse to a well-reasoned argument to the contrary.

The wording here was unclear, what i mean to ask was:

“do you believe If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry ?”

See, now that’s a more thorough explanation of your position.

I disagree with pretty much all of your assertions (though the witch hunt stuff can be true sometimes) , but at least i know I’m disagreeing with an opinion formed using the whole of the information provided.

This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.

It shows you read the initial information in it’s entirety and still came to the conclusion you did.

That removes the possibility of responses such as “Did you even read the initial tweet?”.

Well… it should remove that possibility, in practice it just means you can safely ignore those responses because clearly the people making those responses haven’t read your response in it’s entirety.

If all he said was literally “i approve of this pick for this position” you’d be correct.

What actually happened was he approved of the pick and also claimed the republicans are now actually the party that stands for the “little guy”.

Then followed up with a non apology that claimed what he said was not intended to be a “political statement”.

by all means, argue that you think there’s a fuss over nothing, but if you leave important context out seemingly because it doesn’t suit your narrative it weakens your argument substantially.

2/2

I agree completely, which is why I say it’s not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies it’s something that needs to be corrected. I do see it as something that deviates from the norm, but in a way as harmless and inconsequential as left-handedness.

And i don’t disagree (aside from the discussion on “norm” as stated above).

I thought I had done a good enough job of establishing upfront what I meant when I said that I was pro LGBT and was coming at this from a point of trying to understand, but I the backlash clearly shows that was not enough.

That’s not necessarily true, people are going to disagree and misunderstand especially on a subject such as this, all you can do is engage in good faith and work with the results of that.

If you want to refine your explanations, that’s fine also, but you aren’t going to get 100% success rates, especially on the internet.

I find it frustrating having to tiptoe around topics like this and always try to explain myself because people are so quick to look for the bad, but I suppose that is the current world we live in.

All we can do is our best, if that’s not enough for some people, so be it.

This kind of communication is a skill, it’ll get more refined over time.

It’s a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I can’t exect strangers on the internet to know me or what I believe in.

True, so manage your expectations accordingly.

If you go in to it with an understanding of the potential outcomes you won’t be blindsided.

I’ve done a lot of explaining myself, but I’m still not conviced my original assumption is incorrect. I still think that homosexuality has a biological/mental aspect because gay people say that they were born that way, it’s not a choice, it’s who they are. I didn’t choose to be straight so that makes perfect sense to me. I also know that the people who feel that way are in a minority, therefore something is happening mentally, biologically, I don’t know, to a small subset of people making them an abnormality.

The conversation about a potential biological/genetic component to homosexuality is incredibly charged for various reasons but mainly because of the consequences of either outcome.

If it turns out there is a genetic component then think of all the things the fundamentalist nutjobs would want to do with that information.

And given that fundamentalist nutjobs aren’t know for their clear headed and rational thinking they wouldn’t understand (or would wilfully ignore) that you probably can’t just point to a “gay gene” as a means of identification so not only would they being doing stupid shit, they’d be doing stupid shit that doesn’t make any sense.

What I HAVE learned is I need to be more cautious of using the word abnormal which goes full circle to my question on if this is an issue of language. Most people really don’t like words that black and white say they’re different, because while it may be true, it can be used by people who do not feel like deviations from the norm are acceptable, and they will attack them for being the “other”. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say they’re on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.

I think it’s more complicated than just language, though language is a major component on the internet.

There are sometimes ways to present the same information in a similar way that makes use of linguistic and societal context to convey the meaning of what you were saying while downplaying some of the the negative aspects of how it could be received.

I suspect an issue you might be having is that at a glance they’d probably both look the same to you, so with a choice between four words and two sentences the more concise seems like the better option.

Though i might be projecting.

I don’t actually think that’s the issue here however, i agree it’s just a charged subject and people are people.

1/2

Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out comment. I’ll try to reply to it but honestly the amount of downvotes I’m getting for trying to understand something is a bit discouraging so I don’t think I’ll be keeping the conversation going much longer.

No problem, i recognise the style of question because it’s how i would approach it.

As you correctly noted a few times, this is an emotionally charged topic so a higher than normal amount of people will interpret the question through the lens of their emotions

Even with the best intentions and most detailed prefaces you should still manage your expectations on the types and tone of replies you will get to such a question.

I think of it this way :

• if if think they are misunderstanding the question i am posing then they are not actually attacking me or my position, they are attacking what they think is me or my position.
  • Then it’s just a case of determining if I’m willing to put forth the effort required to try and bridge that gap, which varies.
• If i think they are approaching in bad faith, that saves me some effort because i can just ignore/block them.
• If i think there is a genuine engagement, that’s good, even if they disagree I’m getting the discussion i was looking for.

In more concise wording, people are going to people, don’t let them foist their issues on to you, engage when you want, disengage when you don’t.

At least that’s what works for me.

I’m making a pretty general statement so I don’t have numbers to back anything up, but I would be very surprised if we didn’t have basic statistics on how many people identify as gay, or are diagnosed with ADD, etc. So I think we do understand norms, but you’re right this always changes with increased research and study.

I do see what you mean, what i was saying is that the understanding of “norm” isn’t very clearly defined in these sorts of cases.

Eye colour is relatively easy (within defined colour brackets) you can look at the single item of data and categorise so it’s easy to partition the population based on something like that.

With things like mental health diagnoses we can’t even reliably agree upon what brackets to apply so it’s significantly more difficult to apply the idea of a norm.

in turn that makes the idea of abnormal equally difficult to define.

I did this on purpose. I’m not saying any of these are similar at all, just that they’re attributes that might make us unique and as far as I’m aware (since I’m not religious) these are functions of brain chemestry. Somone who has a very creative mind can be encouraged through their upbringing and surroundings to use it for music, arts, etc but I do think think there is something physical in the brain there. I’m not a neuroscientist so I don’t know how much is attributed to genetics, hormones, etc.

I agree with them all being functions of brain chemistry.

Though i don’t rule out something we’d consider supernatural or spiritual because honestly i don’t really know much of anything to be definitively ruling out something like that.

I don’t subscribe to them in my daily life, but who knows.

The answer to most of this is “it’s complicated” and we’re basically using best guesses at this point, these guesses are based on scientific principles, but all that science really is is a semi-concrete method of defining and refining what our best guesses currently are.

What i was trying to convey is that while all of these things could be considered “attributes”, in reality it’s much more nuanced than it seems, musical talent has many forms, as does ADD and sexual orientation/preference.

Honestly i’d consider most brain stuff to just be unique expressions of an individual, rather than a set of labels, but that isn’t very helpful in most circumstances.

Ah i think i see.

That quote is not from my post, i think you meant to reply to the OP.

I don’t think understand what you are asking, would you mind adding a bit more detail please ?

Question, and this may not be the perfect place for this, but is it the phrasing that LGBTQ is a mental “illness” that’s the problem here, or that it’s a mental attribute at all?

There are many possible reasons why people might be upset at this change.

For example, loosening the moderation and restrictions like this it empowers people who are coming at this specifically with malice in mind to act with impunity.

I’m an LGBT supporter, so I’m not coming at this from a place of malice, I suppose it’s curiosity and ignorance. Don’t we basically understand that the way we function as humans is all a part of our brain chemistry, and that certain deviations from the norm cause things like ADD, homosexuality, musical creativity, etc etc?

That’s a complicated question, with a lot of what i would consider reductive phrasing.

“Deviations from the norm” would imply that there is a specific baseline “norm” to point at, when it’s much more of a vague idea of what is average, which changes over time and with increased understanding/study.

Grouping ADD, homosexuality and musical creativity together is also a bit of a stretch IMO.

ADD can be classified as a divergence from the very rough average baseline of brain function, but even then it encompasses a wide range of differences and these differences vary from person to person.

This is evidenced by how they diagnose these conditions ( ADD, ASD, Anxiety disorder etc), which is through questionnaires and assessments by professionals.

It’s not a

“You tick the 10 ADD boxes so you get the label” kind of thing,

it’s more

“You exhibit enough of these wide range symptoms with a large enough difference from the vague baseline that we would put you roughly in to this category”

Opinions on homosexuality being nature vs nurture vs “some other thing” is a whole other giant kettle of fish.

And musical “talent” can have many sources, depending on your definition.

The word illness seems way too strong, as we as a society have decided we don’t have anything against that personal trait/lifestyle/whatever

It’s commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.

Look up what they used to call “Hysteria” and what that enabled them to justify as “medical procedures”.

I’m sure there are people who legitimately think it’s some sort of illness but i’d put my money on the majority just being arseholes using it as an excuse.

but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?

Depends on if you consider homosexual behaviour as something unnatural.

My personal opinion is that anything we do is “natural” as we are a part of nature, not outside of it.

Putting that argument aside however, there are instances of homosexual behaviour in animals other than humans.

It also heavily depends on your definition of “abnormal”, for instance, would you consider left-handedness a mental abnormality ?

Again I don’t want to get caught up in feelings here, because I think people will hear that and take offence to it since no one wants to be “abnormal”

They might take offence because words have contextual meaning associated with them.

The strict definition of the word abnormal isn’t particularly useful here , it’s only when it’s given context that it makes sense.

My view is that the word “abnormal” when used in the context of homosexuality has been continually used as a weapon, a way to normalise and justify bigotry.

If you establish up front what it is exactly you mean (for me this would need to include what you mean by “normal”), then you might get more positive responses.

but that is the concensus is it not?

As far as i understand it, no, it is not.

It’s interesting as a subject but I dislike this as a presentation format.

This is the video equivalent of “this meeting could have been an email”.

Also his voice and cadence are irritating, but I recognise that that’s a personal gripe. Certainly an “old man shouts at cloud” moment but coked up youtuber energy isn’t my jam.