sugar_in_your_tea

@sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works

Mama told me not to come.

She said, that ain’t the way to have fun.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

sugar_in_your_tea,

Cars are absolutely user-serviceable. I do pretty much all of my own maintenance, and I’m not all that mechanically inclined, I just watch YouTube videos and follow along. All you need is a set of wrenches and screwdrivers and you can do most regular repairs.

It’s a lot easier imo to do most car repairs than replace a phone screen imo. With a screen repair, you need finesse with a heat gun and be careful with ribbon cables.

The problem with modern cars and phones though isn’t the Inherent complexity, but the artificial complexity from vendors locking things down. As in, they pair components cryptographically and it’s illegal to distribute tools for profit that break that encryption. If they provided the tools to pair components, it wouldn’t be an issue, but they hide behind IP and DMCA protections, which essentially locks you into their service.

That’s kind of what the article was getting at imo. Vendors are finding new ways to lock you in instead of retaining you with a better product. So companies are trying to get the benefits of being a monopoly through technical and legal means.

sugar_in_your_tea,

What do you mean?

The main problem isn’t capitalism, but monopolies. When a market is sufficiently competitive, we don’t tend to see these issues. And a huge component to a lack of competition is legal protections.

There’s a lot more to it, like anti-trust, cronyism, etc, but IP law is a huge component that no longer does what it was intended to do: protect smaller companies from larger companies. It was originally a tool to encourage competition, and now it’s the opposite. We’d get quite far if we just roll it back to how it was originally (14 years + one optional 14 year extension for copyright, not sure about patents).

sugar_in_your_tea,

“X supports Y which has component Z” and “X is part of group A” does not mean “A supports Z” and it doesn’t necessarily mean “X supports Z.”

I understand attacking Ron DeSantis over the PragerU position, but even then, there’s still a lot of nuance being missed (i.e. does the proposed curriculum in question include that content, or are they selecting other parts of the content from PragerU?).

I’m all for bashing conservatives, especially DeSantis in particular, but this is so much of a stretch that it seems more like an ad hominem than an actual criticism.

sugar_in_your_tea,

Do you have a link to the proposed changes? I’d like something a bit less sensationalized than a SM post.

sugar_in_your_tea,

I’m just saying the white supremacists make up a small part of the overall conservative movement in the US.

The majority are against expansion of gay rights. That one makes no sense to me because the main premise at least used to be reducing government involvement in our lives, and gay people getting married has zero impact on anyone else’s life, so it should be allowed.

I wouldn’t classify conservatives as anti-woman though, they’re just in favor of protecting the rights of the unborn. If you believed that fetuses had human rights, you’d hold a similar position on abortion. So being anti-abortion doesn’t make you anti-woman. It’s a similar thing as being anti-assisted suicide.

We should be calling out actual white supremacists and fascists, not just using labels as a political tool.

sugar_in_your_tea,

Then I guess I’ll have to familiarize myself with the proposed curriculum. I don’t live there, but I do have family there. If you have a resource for what specific changes they’re making, I’m interested in reading it.

That said, I live in a very conservative part of the US and that kind of BS would never fly here. So either someone is making mountains out of mole hills, or Florida is going completely nuts. The first seems more likely.

sugar_in_your_tea,

Thanks! Those articles were quite informative! I didn’t read all of them And it seems to me that it’s a bit of an overreaction, here are some relevant parts of various links you posted:

Politifact:

The controversial part is in this “benchmark clarification” about slave labor: “Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

The rest of the document includes specific standards about slavery, including the development of slavery and the conditions for Africans as they were brought to America. It also covers how slave codes resulted in enslaved people becoming property without rights, abolitionist movements, state and federal laws, revolts by slaves, and the Civil War.

CBS News:

“The intent of this particular benchmark clarification is to show that some slaves developed highly specialized trades from which they benefitted. This is factual and well documented,” said Dr. William Allen and Dr. Frances Presley Rice, members of the group, before listing examples like Crispus Attucks and Booker T. Washington. “Any attempt to reduce slaves to just victims of oppression fails to recognize their strength, courage and resiliency during a difficult time in American history. Florida students deserve to learn how slaves took advantage of whatever circumstances they were in to benefit themselves and the community of African descendants.”

And from the last link (the actual curriculum, on page 71:

SS.68.AA.2.4

Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.

So that’s like 65 pages of non-offensive content, and one sentence that people have issue with. And given the quotes above, I honestly don’t see a problem with it.

The curriculum makes it absolutely clear that slavery is completely unacceptable and really hurt entire groups of people. It goes through the terrible conditions Africans went through, and the unfair treatment leading up to and including emancipation. The curriculum in no way takes the tone of a slave owner apologist, it merely states that many former slaves were able to use skills they learned (by force) to make a life for themselves after achieving freedom. It’s not in any way implying that slavery was a good thing, but that some former slaves were able to use the skills they acquired to support themselves after gaining freedom.

It’s kind of like saying a soldier conscripted to fight in Vietnam who was injured due to fighting in the war was able to use skills after coming home to find gainful employment (e.g. maybe they use flight skills to become a pilot, or survival skills to teach survival classes). The conscription was still a terrible thing, but they were able to make something somewhat positive out of it.

At least that’s how I understand the curriculum and the commentary about it. If I’m missing something, please correct me.

sugar_in_your_tea,

The left wing has their fair share of conspiracy theories, and you don’t have to go any further than RFK Jr. to see it in action in today’s politics. I don’t hold RFK’s views on lies about vaccination data against Democrats, nor do I hold weird QAnon views against Republicans.

The average Republican doesn’t believe in QAnon nonsense or think they should be associated with the GOP. The average Democrat doesn’t believe in anti-vax nonsense or think they should be associated with the Democratic party. Don’t base your opinion on the majority by the views of the vocal minority. Republicans rejecting Trump’s reelection bid should show you that the voter base isn’t in lockstep with their elected officials.

Our elected officials like to sling mud, and I refuse to be part of it. I think both parties suck in a lot of ways, and I agree with both parties on a number of issues.

sugar_in_your_tea,

In which case, admins should err on the side of caution and remove something that might be illegal.

I personally would prefer to have nothing remotely close to CSAM, but as long as children aren’t being harmed in any conceivable way, I don’t think it would be illegal to post art containing children. But communities should absolutely manage things however they think is best for their community.

In other words, I don’t think #1 is a problem at all, imo things should only be illegal if there’s a clear victim.

sugar_in_your_tea,

As does most successful open source software. It’s more of a "this is where we’d like to see things go long term, but that in no way restricts contributions, it merely helps communicate the ideas of the core contributors.

sugar_in_your_tea,

I mean, I think it’s disgusting, but I don’t think it should be illegal. I feel the same way about cigarettes, 2 girls 1 cup, and profane language. It’s absolutely not for me, but that shouldn’t make it illegal.

As long as there’s no victim, knock yourself out with whatever disgusting, weird stuff you’re into.

sugar_in_your_tea,

What’s the point of reporting it to authorities? It’s not illegal, nor should it be because there’s no victim, so all reporting it does is take up valuable time that could be spent tracking down actual abuse.

sugar_in_your_tea,

Hey, just because someone has a stupid take on one subject doesn’t mean they have a stupid take on all subjects. Attack the argument, not the person.

sugar_in_your_tea,

If we took this to its logical conclusion, most popular games would be banned. How many JRPGs have underage protagonists? How many of those have some kind of love story going on in the background? What about FPS games where you’re depicted killing other people? What about fantasy RPGs where you can kill and control animals?

Things should always be legal unless there’s a clear victim. And communities should absolutely be allowed to filter out anything they want, even if it’s 100% legal. So the lack of clear articulation of the legal issues is very worrisome since it implies a moral obligation to remove legal but taboo content.

sugar_in_your_tea,

As a parent, I’m always worried about any policy with “protect the children” as the main argument. There are lots of stupid policies proposed and sometimes implemented that are justified this way, such as:

  • facial recognition to prevent underage kids from playing certain video games
  • proof of ID to access social media and porn
  • complicated parental controls on devices and services

And so on.

Most of these have easy ways to circumvent these rules and absolutely violate privacy, so I will be teaching my kids how to do that. In fact, once our home Internet gets fast enough, I may route all traffic through a VPN just to avoid most of these stupid rules and instead rely on trust with my kids to keep them safe on the Internet.

sugar_in_your_tea,

Perhaps. But pretty much everyone has a stupid take on something.

There’s obviously a limit there, but most people can be reasoned with. So instead of jumping to a conclusion, attempt a dialogue first until they prove that they can’t be reasoned with. This is especially true on SM where, even if you can’t convince the person you’re talking with, you may just convince the next person to come along.

sugar_in_your_tea,

Wow, that’s absolutely ridiculous, thanks for sharing! That would be a very unpopular bill to get overturned…

I guess it fits with the rest of the stupidly named bills. It doesn’t protect anything, it just prosecutes undesirable behaviors.

sugar_in_your_tea,

I don’t think the OP ever said the bar was rape, the OP said the article and the person they responded to are treating drawn depictions of imaginary children the same as depictions of actual children. Those are not the same thing at all, yet many people seem to combine them (apparently including US law as of the Protect Act of 2003).

Some areas make a distinction (e.g. Japan and Germany), whereas others don’t. Regardless of the legal status in your area, the two should be treated separately, even if that means both are banned.

sugar_in_your_tea,

Sure, and I don’t think that’s the case here. If someone is literally arguing that a certain race should be exterminated that’s one thing (report, down vote, block, and move on), but someone arguing that lolicon is just as bad as CP is something completely different entirely.

I’m just arguing that it’s generally better to have the conversation than to completely shut them out. I really hate cancel culture, so I will always call out anything that seems similar. I believe in letting people explain themselves, to an extent, and my limit is if they’re actively promoting real harm to actual people (e.g. encouraging violence against some group).

sugar_in_your_tea,

Why? Who is the victim?

sugar_in_your_tea,

No, more like “treating them the same” => how the data is reported in the study. Whether they’re both against the TOS of the instance you’re on is a separate issue entirely, the problem is the data doesn’t separate the two categories.

Look elsewhere ITT about that exact perspective. Even the US law (Protect Act of 2003) treats them largely the same (i.e. in the same sentence), and includes other taboo topics like bestiality, even if no actual animals are involved.

It’s completely fine for neither to be allowed on a social network, what isn’t okay is for research to conflate the two. An instance inconsistently removing lolicon is a very different thing from an instance inconsistently removing actual CP, yet the article combines the two, likely to make it seem like a much worse problem than it is.

sugar_in_your_tea,

I’m not saying you shouldn’t call them out, in fact I’m 100% in favor of calling out BS. What I’m saying is to not shut down the conversation if the other side is willing to explain themselves or open to learning more.

One thing I absolutely loved about Reddit was joining communities where I was a minority and having a good faith discussion with someone I wasn’t ideologically aligned with. A lot of times I got completely shut down, but sometimes I had really good discussions and better understood the other side’s perspective.

So all I’m saying is you (and everyone here honestly) should seek to enable that kind of discussion instead of just stopping at the first sign of disagreement. Someone saying lolicon is as harmful as CP is probably just misinformed.

The end of polite and civil discussion

I have yet to see that, because I make a solid effort to have polite and civil discussion and I usually get it reciprocated.

If you’re aggressive, you’ll get aggressiveness back, but if you’re inquisitive and polite, you’ll likely get the same in return. Some people can’t be reasoned with, but I have found that many are open to hearing other perspectives, provided I go out of my way to be polite.

sugar_in_your_tea,

I’m responding to this comment you made earlier ITT, emphasis mine:

If you don’t think images of actual child abuse, against actual children, is infinitely worse than some ink on paper, I don’t care about your opinion of anything.

It’s quite an extreme position to me to completely shut someone out because they hold a relatively popular opinion (e.g. lolicon and CP are treated under the same federal statute in the US). You constructed a strawman (they didn’t say they were equivalent), and then you jumped to saying you don’t care about their opinion about anything because of it. That’s ridiculous and unnecessarily inflammatory.

I’m not saying you should try to appease everyone, just that you should consider toning things down a bit and inquire instead of accuse. If we want a polite and civil discourse, everyone needs to make an effort. I certainly try, and I respectfully ask that you do the same.

sugar_in_your_tea,

And their definition kind of sucks. They’re basically saying it’s anything that SafeSearch or PhotoDNA flags, or something that has hashtag hits.

That said, there’s absolutely some terrible things on Mastodon, including grooming and trading. I’m interested to know what the numbers look like for lolicon and similar vs actual CP, which would give me a much better understanding of how bad the problem is. As in, are the things included in the report outliers, or typical of their sample set?

I guess I’m looking for a bit more granularity in the report.

sugar_in_your_tea,

Yeah, I’d definitely like more research on the topic. I imagine it’s a correlative relationship, but not causal (as in, pedos disproportionately also like loli, but enjoying loli won’t likely make you a pedo), but I don’t have much to go on there.

What I do know is that most reports of “gateway” behaviors end up being false. For example, smoking weed isn’t going to push you toward harder drugs, but people who may be interested in harder drugs will likely start with weed. The same goes for violent video games, gambling, prostitution, etc. Each of those things can be used in a healthy way, so imo they should not be illegal.

But I don’t have a high quality study to back it up. I’m completely willing to concede if the science shows otherwise.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • cubers
  • everett
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • tester
  • GTA5RPClips
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • normalnudes
  • ethstaker
  • ngwrru68w68
  • cisconetworking
  • thenastyranch
  • provamag3
  • osvaldo12
  • Leos
  • mdbf
  • tacticalgear
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •