It is a definitional and logical conclusion that a concept cannot tolerate its anathema and inverse.
This is a pretty good rewording removing ambiguity.
As for my experience seeing this point brought up, its usually to silence a voice, and then this logical statement is equaled to the moral reasoning and justification in one, instead of reasoning inside that case how a "removal" would be required.
What if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn't break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?
What does nuking a potato mean? Unfamiliar with the slang.
As an individual you can't be expected to do that and there are many good reasons not to do it, as you could suffer from consequences. As part of a society, all of your actions do shape the social environment around you in small ways. But when the interests of you as an individual with those actions of society clash, you do bear the responsibility of what happens in that society. In my opinion this would apply even to those who have worked against unethical actions, because taken for a bigger scope at a nationwide level, it wouldn't be feasible to exclude those from reparations either way. Even if the "good" would get compensated with a lower tax, they will economically feel it either way, as the "bad" around them are still sanctioned. And then the ethical dilemma is what could be considered "good" or "bad" at all.
Now taken this generalized context back to marginalized groups, if everyone would be obligated to be an activist, it would punish those unable to cope with the additional stressors activism could entail. Then, the question is who is actually marginalized and who is not, the rich 1% is a minority, but definitely not in "need". There are people labeling themselves as things which they are not. (Some "leftist queer" folk are more rightwing in their deeds, than actual conservatives.) I also believe those who fight for the rights of those that person itself doesn't belong to, adds nuances, you can quite often see ideological shifts in people depending on their income. Which gives the question on whether a truly fair solution between groups is attainable, and probably an unsolvable optimization problem, so compromises must happen.
Every policy you go for, will eventually have some people discriminated against in some ways or even actively harm them. No matter what your stance on HRT and medical transition is, there will be some people who should not have done it in the first place, or should have to alleviate their gender dissonance. And whatever line you draw in the sand, there will be something wrong with it. Expecting everybody to strictly enforce some kind of policy by activism, is an ethical burden we can't place on an individual, but which we involunatarily bear by its consequence.
This should be illegal. As a person who was once false flagged manually by network attribution. Of course the anti troll flagging network was itself socially destroyed by time and is frequently cause of scandals while nobody cares for me.
Add certain language patterns and political stances and you have an excellent oppressive tool.
The behavior the study is referring to, is actually result of reddit's algorithms and human psychology. Often the contrarian view of whatever the post is about will automatically float to the top, no matter the topic, opinionated, factual or debunking, nature.
Probably signing up with Bluesky, even if slightly off-topic. The lack of algorithms means the only way to swim up is to post everyday at prime time in the hope to catch some exposure. Because quality posts with high interactions with likes will not bubble up from the crowd.
That is probably true, but doesn't mean much when gaming is such a mainstream activity.
tl;dr
"The grass has been cut as short as possible, and loose, dried grass has been removed from affected areas.
"Prior to tomorrow's sessions, the grass will be dampened, and specific response teams will be stationed around the track."
This is on-topic, because it happened at Microsoft's event.
Happened after the newest Valorant update.
The Deep Fake Detector probably can't keep up anymore with the recent AI advances.