Dienervent

It's a monday. So that's already more like 1 in 52. There's been like 5-20 news worthy "return to work" announcements in the past year, I'm guessing half othem have mandatory 2 days, the other half have mandatory 3 days.

Multiply that by the number of things that happen in your life where a coincidence of this level could happen and you should be seeing this kind of coincidence a many times each year.

It's when you're dealing in an official capacity or speaking to a broad audience or when you don't know the person's culture.

The CEO saying Merry Christmas to his 140 employees, when 5 of them are Jewish is going to be not feel so great for those 5 Jewish people. Happy Holidays should be fine for everyone.

But if you know the person is Christian (or celebrates Christmas) it should be perfectly fine to tell them Merry Christmas.

Of course in some places that may be considered insensitive because a Jewish person might be hearing it. Which is absurd and that level of sensitivity is not acceptable IMO.

Good article?

The comments that formed the basis of the complaints against Dr. Peterson included comments on a podcast in which he commented on air pollution and child deaths by saying “it’s just poor children…”

This quote is the most disgusting out of context character assassination I've seen in a long time.

I got suspicious because while Jordan does say things that women and/or trans people often find deplorable. I know that he's a strong supporter of the poor (at least in rhetoric) and as a family man I assume of children as well.

The full context can be found on Spotify. Episode #1769 of "The Joe Rogan Experience" start from about 15:30. He's the one that brings up how 7 million poor children die from indoor particulate pollution. Joe doesn't believe him and gets a fact check, which eventually leads to Jordan sarcastically saying "Well, it's just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyway..."

It's such an insane mischaracterization of what he said, you can't take the article seriously. Probably would have to write off the entire website that article is from, honestly.

The person I'm talking to is allowed to know who I am so I'm not anonymous. Signal doesn't need to know who I am. It doesn't matter what you call it, that's the feature I'm waiting for to motivate a switch.

That said, I looked up sealed senders. They really do go above and beyond to end2end encrypt as much as they possibly can.

It's just a shame that they insist so hard to tie user accounts to phone numbers.

So why do they only allow users to signup to Signal with a phone number? If they really were about privacy and security, they should allow signups via username+password only.

There so much money to be made for just knowing who is talking to who. Who is using the app and when. Even if they can't get at the content of your messages.

I don't trust them one bit.

That’s a point about being unable to strike a balance between two groups who do not see eye to eye.

Yes, it's a fundamental problem of life. Some people suggest compromise. Some people suggest a different kind of solution. A "final" solution so to speak.

Now you read this quote again and you tell me: Which of these solution does he suggest is best?

If I learned anything from playing Civilzation, even when you win a neighoring city over to your side with culture or trade alone, they’re always going to be a problem. It’s better to just raze the whole damn thing to the ground and start over in the same spot.

If I learned anything from playing Civilzation, even when you win a neighoring city over to your side with culture or trade alone, they’re always going to be a problem. It’s better to just raze the whole damn thing to the ground and start over in the same spot.

That's genocide.

TLDR: If you find yourself defending the person hyperbolically calling for genocide against the person condemning it. It might be time to ask yourself "Are we the baddies?"

I can't bring myself to give an actual example. But imagine this scenario, I'm hanging out with a couple of work colleagues. Let's call them fixtionalJake and BroBroBro. Now were just chatting something comes up about all the vandalism that black people did during the BLM protest and fixtionalJake makes an obviously hyperbolic comment proposing that all black people should get murdered or that their ancestors should have. But the comment is a little bit indirect, and clearly absurdly impossible to implement. BroBroBro is laughing along.

I'm standing there thinking, that is some seriously messed up racist stuff right there. For sure fixtionalJake is a least a little bit racist, but maybe he didn't quite understand how it came across.

So I say dude that was f'ed up that the most racist thing I ever heard, what the hell is wrong with you? His response is: "I'm not gonna get caught by this dumb rhetoric, if someone commits a crime, you put them in jail don't you?"

Everyone in the company up to the vice precident smile, and agrees. BroBroBro, knows which the tide is turning and he wants to fit in, so he adds: "Yeah dufus, that thing he said is obviously impossible to do, what are you, 'stupid'?"

I suspect that if you were in my place you would just conclude that both those guys and pretty much the entire company are at the very list raging racist assholes.

But not me, I have faith in humanity. Yes, every single thing they've done is consistent with raging racist assholes. It's even consistent with the behavior of people who are genuinely hoping to find a way to genocide every black person.

But BroBroBRo's behavior is also consistent with that of someone who's just a little bit clueless and just a little bit too desperate to fit in. It's probably consistent with many other kinds of behavior.

fixtionalJake is 99% chance a raging racist asshole, but maybe not really a genocidal one though. I mean he could, but it's also possible that he's not.

Either way, I'm quitting my job, working triple time for the competition at half pay. Just in case. just to make sure they don't get the to snowball the funds to actually do it.

And that's how I justify my behavior of posting all over this thread. Just in case. I want everyone to understand that indiscriminately killing all far right wingers is an abhorrent and evil thing to do. And I don't want this to be a place where you can dog-whistle-advocate for such killings without getting called out on it.

It's not a random message board. It's THIS message board, THIS thread. The one that you're contributing to right now. The one where you've decided to argue against the person condemning genocide instead of arguing against the person calling for genocide.

The opponents were not the ones coughing. Don’t gaslight.
How can you be this dense? Where did I say that the opponents were coughing? Nowhere. So try again to understand what I'm saying because you clearly didn't understand and I don't know how to make it any more clear. Read what I said again and I recommend you try to use your brain this time.

And their quote was in big letters in a box by itself with no context
There was context: the content of the article calling for increased ability for individual parents to have control over what their kids are taught. This opposes the concept of centralized control over what children are taught which is what the Hitler quote was promoting.

The weird thing is that I'm still fairly confident that the Moms of Liberty do have as their end goal to gain control over education curriculum and make it heavily ideologically based on their own anti-lgbtq+, pro religious and eventually racist ideology. But all this "evidence" you're giving me is starting to make me wonder if I've been bamboozled.

None of this changes the fact that you still have failed to condemn a comment on this very thread that is part of your community, supported by your community and is calling for genocide. Which is IMO still far worse than anything I've seen you (possibly falsely) accused the Moms of Liberty of doing.