Reading a chart and understanding it are different things, a further different thing is understanding what it means in context.

This is a good book for learning the ins and outs of how to understanding statistical data in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

It does come at it through the lens of intentionally deceptive practices but It’s a good general introduction as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_processing_disorder

@mods The rest of this chain was offensive, but this comment consisting solely of a personal attack is not ?

Removed by mod

That is my matrix username

Ah, makes sense.

I respond to a someone probably exploring communism asking about a term with an emphasis on the deleting of certain posts spreading misinformation, which might miss guide the person asking the question into some kind of vaushist “leftism” or turn them off from exploring marxism. The specific posts spreading misinformation are claiming a very accusatory claim used by western imperialists to make a government look bad, which in a less fortunate country that is just developing, could be the result of support for a coup to put in a puppet government. Whether you support that claim which is objectively false (https://tankie.tube/w/p/kFZ2joQah4kmt2KSpzPHtb?playlistPosition=6&resume=true <-- is an entertaining starter with sources) is irrelevant when people think these people spreading such disinformation are some kind of heroes.

That also makes sense, mostly, i disagree with some of it on a logical principle level, but i really don’t have a personal horse in any of the political parts i also don’t know/care enough to get one.

All the things you said might be true, they all might be false, though i suspect they’re all subjective enough to be context dependent, i also suspect we aren’t going to agree on the difference between subjective and objective, which is my main disagreement with the statement as a whole.

My main point was, there were answers that are now deleted, that is provably true.

The subjective accuracy of those answers isn’t really the point and no claim was made on that aspect.

Also, the implied /s for “mysterious” didn’t land and that’s on me.

Removed by mod

@Williama:Genzedong

I’m not sure what this means, is this a reference i’m supposed to know?

Come on lib send me the Tiananmen Square video of tanks doing the things you claim they do. @Williama:Genzedong

Not sure if this is aimed at me, but i haven’t claimed anything to do with tanks, at any point, ever.

Some answers haven’t “disappeared for mysterious reasons”,

That’s fair , i meant “mysterious reasons” in a less factual and more sarcasm way, but i can see how that might have not come across.

it’s for spreading misinformation.

That’s subjective, which is what that whole thread is about no?

I wasn’t really emphasizing the subjectivity of the claims, as much as just pointing out that answers had been removed and they might be found in the modlog.

You seem to have a strong opinion on this, i do not.

If you disagree then come on, send me a video of the “horrendous crimes committed by China in Tiananmen Square”

I’m sure you can search for whatever videos you need, i haven’t made any claims i would need to provide video evidence for.

I won’t be providing evidence of positions i haven’t taken or claims i haven’t made, that would be silly.

I fully consent. @Williama:Genzedong.

Still not sure what this reference is.

Surely at least one of the “victims of the massacre” would have recorded something the “ruthless military regime” and their oh so very “despicable acts of massacre”.

See the above section about there being no claims or positions taken.

If you want to imagine i’ve sent you proof of this imaginary claim i’ve made so you can be upset in your imagination , feel free.

If you and other libs are annoyed that the devs are “tankies”, then go back to reddit.

See above re: claims that never happened

edit: damn, that’s a high percentage of sodium for pointing at a thing that provably exists in the modlog.

worth checking the modlog, seems there were answers that have since disappeared for mysterious reasons.

Great argument there. Replace what I say with whatever you think it says and go on from there.

I mean, yes… that is what i did… i explained as i did it.

Should I just do the same with yours and we’ll see what kind of nonsense comes out? I’m sure that would be in your interpretation of “good faith”.

Was this a preface to actually doing this? is there a part of the text missing ?

TL;DR;

It’s weird to be upset at people for having personal boundaries/morals/ethics.

Using “purity test” like a pejorative, because using a more accurate term makes your argument sound bad, is a bad faith approach.

You say “purity tests” like it’s some sovcit term imbued with magical powers, like DEI or woke.

Headcanon replace it with “personal ethics and morals” and you might see how some of those arguments are really just people having boundaries.

An example of what i mean.

This is the biggest issue with niche communities: purity tests.

They can’t unite under one goal and have productive discussions. They are more focused on being correct (their interpretation of correct) and shutting out the incorrect than getting closer to a goal. Sometimes incorrect can be as little as choosing the wrong utility and other times it can be much bigger but they all spark the same amount of ire.

vs

This is the biggest issue with niche communities: personal ethics and morals.

They can’t unite under one goal and have productive discussions. They are more focused on being correct (their interpretation of correct) and shutting out the incorrect than getting closer to a goal. Sometimes incorrect can be as little as choosing the wrong utility and other times it can be much bigger but they all spark the same amount of ire.

See how the rest of that statement sounds without the bad faith, magic-word interpretation ?

I’m not expecting any good faith arguments in response, so don’t worry, this was a just-in-case kind of thing.

Is that relevant somehow?

Is this situation relevant to that example? Are the people in question changed since the time in which the accusations were made?

Rebranding personal ethics and morals as “a purity test” is disingenuous at best.

If you’re going to take umbridge with someone’s approach at least do it directly instead of this backhanded high horse bullshit.

For now : https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Brother_printers_causing_issues_with_third_party_inks

I have one also so I’m invested in how this plays out.

i’m not particularly enthused about either, but if you’ll read my original reply you can find out why i dislike the new one specifically.

hint it’s not really because of the id itself

Yes, as i said, different in scope not type.

The difference is scope and ease of (inevitable) creep.

In isolation, this probably isn’t that big a change, as part of a trend though, this is the change that all of what is to come, hinges on.

This is a central point of identity that is now mandatory for a jobs and housing ( + a bunch of other stuff ).

Yes you need some things for a bank account and tax purposes, this isn’t different in type, it’s different in scope.

Now, given the propensity for “think of the children” wrapping for basically any privacy encroachment they can think up , they can tie it to this, because it’s digital it’s significantly easier to do that.

Previously they’d have had to think “how can we enforce this bullshit” and would have to factor in the cost of additional verification systems to support their bullshit.

Now they don’t.

Yeah, re-reading it myself , it was a weird example and that may have been where they were going with it.

Whataboutism was is a reference to your suggestion that Superman is also a war criminal. In the universe of the first movie we as the audience are essentially told by the text that Superman is good and Lex is bad. In introducing the idea that “Superman is also” as a reason to excuse teaming up with Lex seems to fit the bill for that.

Hmm, i see what you mean and i hadn’t considered it as a whattaboutism as i wasn’t using it as a foundation of another argument, merely using it to illustrate the weakness of using the term “war criminal” in a context where that term is hugely subjective.

But i concede that it could be considered as such.

As far as no true Scottsman, there’s potentially a fallacy that fits better, and no true Scotsman may not even really fit the bill at all, but essentially this concept that you cannot portray someone as universally good. I just think that’s not really relevant in this context and I disagree with it. I’m not saying that Superman has to be perfect. I just don’t think it’s good to team up with Lex. The idea that some people might not see it as a negative doesn’t change the fact that some people would. And conceptually I understand that where I’d draw the line might differ from where other people draw the line, but the suggestion that where I draw the line is somehow unreasonable to the point of bringing up the idea that nobody could be perfect seems strange.

I’m not sure where i was making the argument that superman has to be perfect, but that was not my intention, i was merely pointing out that the term “War Criminal” is subjective to the point of being useless in my opinion, because it’s a term that comes from the in world corrupt and broken systems.

The term “Criminal” is used to assign a negative status to whomever the current regime deems it to be so.

In this film specifically superman is considered a “War Criminal” by Boravia.

I’m not disagreeing with your subjective moral position, i’m saying the term you are using is weak.

I wasn’t suggesting your subjective opinion was incorrect (or unreasonable), i was just positing that alternative positions are possible.

A difference of opinion.

I’m not suggesting that Superman is held to some high minded unrealistic standard. I think most people would agree that Lex is a bad guy and from a moralistic standpoint would prefer if Superman not have to work with him. I’m not saying it would necessarily make better media, just that we probably don’t need to watch war criminals have a redemption arc at this moment in history.

I think that’s unsubstantiated opinion, but it’s not like i have reams of data to prove otherwise so again, a difference of opinion.

Additionally, I don’t care very much about what was and was not the case in the comics. My understanding is that in the comics his parents never suggested he form a harem. I think that each reboot should be considered as its own incarnation, and I think Lex in this incarnation is an objectively bad person. I do not think that the movie left any real room for interpretation there. He’s not misguided, or misinformed. He’s a bad guy because fundamentally at the core of his being he has these flaws that affect the way he sees the world and treats others.

The comic were used as a point of reference to support my subjective opinion that it’s possible to have a plausible redemption arc with lex, i then used that as a basis to provide a situation in which it could occur.

I fundamentally disagree that objectively bad exists, but i agree he was an across the board arsehole in this one.

Like I said, I will have to reserve ultimate judgment for when we know more about the actual content, but I just don’t think it’s a good premise.

Fair enough.

That a disingenuous reply at best, the choice is clearly “person doesn’t do enough to help your people” vs “person who actively allows great harm to your people”.

The example could probably have done with being gender neutral, but even so.

I’m not sure why you zeroed in on the female part and not the “doesn’t do enough to help your people” part.