physics too hard: nonphysical things can’t kill? preposterous

Basically: the denialism here is unreal. Lemmy confirms the premise that this discourse & the people spouting it are broken & senseless. Can’t even grasp the difference between physical & nonphysical.

How do you control the course of a failing rocket? Are you claiming such misdesign is impossible?

The fact remains that unlike with words, a physical potential of death & injury exists in what is technically a missile of significant weight carrying enough explosive substance to escape orbit. The difference between non-0 and 0 possibility of death/injury.

Unless magic exists, words are incapable. Do you claim magic exists? How do mere words cause death without the personal responsibility of something else culpably choosing to take several steps of its own? Or are you arguing the sight of words have deranged you into a mindless killer? If so, maybe you’re the real threat.

Seems like you’re arguing society is dangerous to life: I agree. That’s not a valid argument against words, though.

Again, total lack of perspective & sense.

reading comprehension: none

Don’t know, man: kinda think the potential loss of life from a failing rocket crashing into people matters somewhat more than words. Maybe?

Musk himself seems to abhor guardrails generally—except in cases where guardrails help him personally—preferring to hurriedly ship products, rapid unscheduled disassemblies be damned. That may be fine for an uncrewed rocket, but X has hundreds of millions of users aboard.

• Grok: writes embarrassing words.
• Rockets: can weigh hundreds of metric tons, carry explosive chemicals, can crash into populated areas resulting in loss of life.

In this discourse, anyone else find a broken sense of proportion & consequences at stake?

Bans are rarely justified. Strong emotions aren’t a good reason to ban much. If there are minimally invasive alternatives, and we can let others be, that’s typically better.

Emotions aren’t a good reason for anything, really. I distrust feelings & prefer to understand & make sense of them before I allow myself to indulge them in myself or others.

Judgement of right & wrong can operate on reason, and it’s better that it does. If someone is (justifiably) upset over a wrong, then a wrong exists, and knowing that suffices & is better than feeling it.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

No, not in general: too much unjustified outrage & self-absorbed idiocy in the world over unreasonable shit. Karens, bigots, culture warriors, pearl clutchers, holy wars. Too many people need to cool it & chill the fuck out.

There are also legitimate differences in the world, and we need to respect liberties to dissent & differ.

They need to be justifiably upset. Only then is it understandable. However, getting upset over it is not generally a good move: it may lead to poor decisions. Better to stay collected, acknowledge the problem, apply fair judgement to correct the matter.

Language policing of this sort is a red flag indicative of an ignorant, contentious trendhopper picking a fight over conventional English usage.

Those nouns are conventional usage:

or plainly observe unsolicited speech productions

• here on lemmy or in the news such as where a mother refers to her daughters as females

  “What if I would have been armed,” she said. “You’re breaking in. What am I supposed to think? My initial thought was we were being robbed—that my daughters, being females, were being kidnapped. You have guns pointed in our faces. Can you just reprogram yourself and see us as humans, as women? A little bit of mercy. […]"

• in singles communities, personals, classifieds, marketplaces (abundant instances)
• in book titles & passages containing the word females or males, especially feminist or gender studies literature.

What good cause is advanced by treating nouns female & male as toxic, dirty words?

While OP doesn’t appear to be a native English user, this kind of language policing is misguided & exhausting, and we need to police that.

Or goodness is its own reward?

If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.

―Lindsey Graham

What’s with this new trend to label normal behavior as somehow related to ADHD or autism?

That’s always been around. Another example: having enough interest & focus to get good at something difficult. When someone suggests that isn’t normal (rather than a natural result of persistent effort & willpower), it really indicates to me a shortcoming in whoever believes that (why don’t they think they could do the same if they seriously tried? are they a moron?).

Maybe people need to learn to not suck as bad, check their sources, ask questions like how do I know this is true?

Basic shit we should have learned long before we reach adulthood? 🤷

This is a sentiment often repeated by manosphere influencers and there’s no actual tangible evidence it exists and I think that’s the real issue.

This is why I feel there is such a disconnect. I just have to open TikTok to see this, so if researchers are not finding evidence then I’m very curious how that’s possible. Heck, you just need to look at the same masculinity influencer content they are talking about to see it, because it’s not just them making shit up from nothing - they will often use clips of misandrist women to get their point across. So they basically find the evidence for you.

Why has no one here said “links”?

People here just talk in circles instead of providing concrete support.

Apple to Australianseveryone: You’re Too Stupid to Choose Your Own Apps

fix’d

There are speech police in the real world. Workplaces don’t allow you to use slurs or to harass your co-workers.

That “speech police” traces to the government in the form of labor laws & regulations in the remit of the EEOC, eg, Title 7 of Civil Rights Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act. Employers didn’t conceive of such workplaces policies on their own to invite lawsuits & put targets on their backs.

These laws do not apply to social media as a communication platform. Offensive expression doesn’t deny equal access/opportunities to platform resources they are under any legal obligation to provide. Should we put much confidence in social media companies voluntarily assuming unnecessary obligations just because?

It never made sense.

Do we really like people, though?

That’s hilarious. 👍

Nah, and cool opinion.

As someone else wrote, why should anyone put much confidence in “some giant/evil megacorp”? They’re not a philanthropic organization & they’re not real authorities. We can expect them to act in their own interest.

If content is truly illegal or harmful, then the real authorities should handle it. Simply taking down that content doesn’t help real authorities or address credible threats. If it’s not illegal or harmful, then we can block or ignore.

People already curate their information offline. It seems reasonable to expect the same online.

Wrong, brah: a violent response doesn’t make a violent protest.