for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?

I believe in freedom of speech, and I don’t think any particular phrases, terms, or verbiage is absolutely unacceptable.

If you ban certain words, people will just substitute them for others with the same underlying meaning. Look at how people dance around YouTube’s TOS to communicate the same thing without using certain words (unalive, “super mario brothers,” etc). Banning people for using certain terminology or discussing certain topics completely misses the point, which is eliminating intolerance.

this label is harmful

It’s not the label that’s harmful, it’s the intent and meaning behind it. Policies for a platform should be based on the root of the issue, not the symptoms.

“Hate the sin, love the sinner”

The problem is that people don’t actually do the second, they replace “love” with “pity.” Pity isn’t love, it’s intolerance. If you truly love someone, you won’t care whether they sin or not, you’ll just love them for who they are and want them to be the happiest they can be.

Whether homosexuality is a sin shouldn’t be relevant at all, sin is between an individual and their god, especially in Christianity.

The problem is that people justify their intolerance by misinterpreting or misapplying phrases like these. They think things like conversion therapy is a demonstration of love, when in fact it’s a demonstration of brutal intolerance.

The root of the problem here is intolerance, not the words we use to describe something.

Conversation Therapy

Ironically, this typo is exactly the therapy LGBTQ+ people need, and probably the therapy that works least well for people on the autism spectrum.

There are a lot of treatments available. For LGBTQ+, the best treatment is probably social acceptance, followed closely by body modification. For people on the autism spectrum, it’s finding a lifestyle that plays to their strengths rather than expects them to conform to whatever is “normal.”

The problem isn’t with definitions, but intolerance. Certain groups refuse to acknowledge that there’s more than one way to solve a given problem, and that more effective and compassionate solutions are valid. If we assume that, for example, homosexuality is a “disorder,” two possible treatments are:

• remove the gay
• embrace the gay

I’m not even sure the first is possible, but the second is absolutely effective. Why default to the harder, unproven option when the second is so effective? The problem here isn’t definitions, but intolerance, but unfortunately tolerance is much harder achieve and changing words is relatively easy.

Sifu? If so, yes, it was released more than 12 months ago.

Look at these noobs not using a private window at minimum.

I think I saw that at Disney World as a kid as my first 3D experience.

I don’t know if they’re shot in 3D, but I enjoy the nature and science movies shown at my local planetarium. There’s nothing gimmicky about them, just subtle depth.

I’ve encountered people disagreeing with ASD ending with D

But shouldn’t it though? According to Webster on disorder:

an abnormal physical or mental condition

And abnormal:

deviating from the normal or average

So something being labeled a “disorder” doesn’t mean it’s “bad,” it just means it’s different from average, and in many cases a cause of distress or discomfort. Not all disorders need to be fixed, they can often be treated by simply accepting them and working around any issues it causes.

The problem here has nothing to do with definitions though, it has to do with harassment and intolerance. Whether being LGBTQ+ or on the autism spectrum is a disorder or not is completely irrelevant, what matters is how we treat each other. If you’re harassing another person, you’re in the wrong, regardless of what the other person is, has, or has done.

Again, let’s go back to Webster about “harass”:

to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct

The law (largely irrelevant in SM though, up to a certain point) defines harassment as having real damages and intent to inflict harm. If you say being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness because you know it’ll cause harm, then you’re guilty of harassment and should be ejected from the platform. If you say it because it’s topically relevant and you’re not intending to cause harm but it happens, then I argue you aren’t guilty of harassment (and you should probably apologize).

The real issue here is intended and actual impact of statements. It doesn’t matter if your speech is factual, what matters is the intent and the result of that speech.

I’m not a psychologist, psychiatrist, or any form of therapist, so I’m not going to take a hard stance on whether any given thing is a disorder or not, I’m going to stick to answering my above questions. And in my case, accepting LGBTQ+ and people on the autism spectrum costs me exactly nothing and helps improve outcomes for them. So why shouldn’t I do that? What harm could possibly come from me being nice?

As a libertarian, I love the saying, “your rights end where mine begin.” You can say whatever you like, up until the point where it starts violating my rights. Harassment violates my rights, and if you harass me with your speech, regardless of the actual content, you should be silenced on that platform.

The way I see it, harassment has two parts to it:

• damages
• intent

If I offend on accident, I should have the opportunity to make it right. If I offend on purpose, I should be banned.

Speech on Facebook/Instagram/etc can constitute harassment, which is a rights violation. That said, harassment has two parts to it:

• actual harm to receiver
• intended harm by the speaker

The second is harder to prove, but fortunately social media has a lot of samples to pick from to demonstrate a pattern.

I’m half with you. You can say what you want, but if you harass people, regardless of the content of your speech, you should be banned/silenced on private platforms.

The problem here isn’t necessarily labeling being LGBTQ+ as a mental illness, the problem is the assumed solution. I’m not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, nor have I talked to one at length about gender or sexual orientation, but I do know that having an illness does not imply that the illness needs to be “fixed,” only the discomfort associated with the illness needs to be addressed. Sometimes “fixing” a problem is the best solution (e.g. a broken bone, depression, etc), and sometimes accepting a problem is the best solution (e.g. blindness, autism spectrum, etc).

You can only be cured of a mental disorder if you want to be cured. My understanding is that most LGBTQ+ don’t see their divergence as something to be cured, so whether we classify it that way is irrelevant, the best treatment here is social acceptance and maybe physical alteration (hormonal therapy, surgery, etc). That has been proven time and time again, and unless someone comes up with a better solution, it’s the prudent option to take.

So I don’t see being LGBTQ+ as a “problem” to be “solved,” rather I see intolerance of LGBTQ+ people as a problem to be solved. LGBTQ+ people don’t harm themselves or others by being the way they are, but intolerant people absolutely harm LGBTQ+ people by treating them the way they do.

While in physics, we can fundamentally change our theoretical understanding of very core concepts without impacting the reproducibility of experiments, and any new theory must also satisfy existing, reproducible experiments.

Same goes for chemistry, computer science, geology, etc. You can discover differences in core, fundamental concepts without invalidating existing experiments.

Which is why after many decades of research the only treatment that’s been found to work is aligning the body with the mind - as at that point the mind continues perceiving the body correctly but this time it’s congruent with it’s mental model which alleviates the distress.

Just because the best treatment involves physical alteration doesn’t change whether it’s a mental disorder. You don’t classify disorders by how they’re addressed, you classify them as where they occur. Whether we term it a disorder, incongruence, etc, the fact remains that the distress happens in the mind.

That said, not all disorders (or whatever you want to call them) need to be “fixed” (i.e. made to be in line w/ the majority), they’re merely a way to distinguish one group of the population from another. Sometimes the best treatment is no treatment, sometimes is physical alteration, sometimes it’s medication, and sometimes it’s psychotherapy.

The average person shouldn’t really care what treatment option an individual chooses to alleviate their symptoms, and the “best” option can very well vary by person. Whether we call it a “disorder” isn’t the issue, the issue is the social impact of assigning a label (i.e. how others react to it). So to me, calling it a disorder should never be against any forum rules, the rules should instead focus on banning harassment, and calling it a disorder could constitute harassment given context.

Every journey needs a first step.

Try to convince some of your contacts to use something else. Repeat until a large chunk of your contacts are available outside WhatsApp, and make yourself increasingly harder to access through WhatsApp and increasingly easier to access on your preferred alternative.

Pricing starts at $500 USD with availability beginning in May.

That’s incredibly tempting. I’m a little worried about the “up to” language here, which makes me think that this $500 unit won’t be as attractive as I’m hoping for.

Is it a VPS? Or do you have a physical server in another country?

Kodi is a great choice regardless of distro, whether that’s libreelec, osmc, or just regular Raspbian.

I installed Kodi on my RetroPie setup, and it works well.

Let’s for a second assume it is a mental illness, how does that make the people feel who are experiencing it? Do they feel loved and understood? If you suffered from the same mental illness where the most effective treatment is tolerance and acceptance, how would you like to be treated?

Never has been:

According to the text messages, Zuckerberg wrote, “Yeah, so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard, just ask me. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS.”

In response, a friend inquired, “What? How did you manage to obtain all that?”

To which Zuckerberg callously replied, “People just submitted it. I don’t know why they ‘trust me.’ Dumb f****.”