Conversation
Notices
-
@lainonymoose @dtluna @se7en That's usually how it goes historically. For what ever reason, male homosexuality has always been seen as the "greater threat" to society by traditionalists, who at the same time, seem far less concerned female homosexuality. https://sealion.club/attachment/18022
-
@dolus @lainonymoose @dtluna It's what people seem to forget when they talk about feminism and all that stuff. Men have historically had more civil rights, but at the same time had more restrictive codes of conduct. IMO @dtluna's complaints about social pressure and persecution are valid, but so is @lainonymoose's point of there being nthing wrong with the government monopolizing gay propaganda. Maybe when people start trying to brainwash kids they'll be allowed more freedom on that respect, but an abused freedom should be taken away when it causes harm to third parties. People need to stop making a show out of their sexuality and go back to considering it a private part of their lives.
Monday, 25-Apr-16 12:24:49 UTC from web-
@nerthos *stop trying
Monday, 25-Apr-16 12:25:09 UTC from web -
@nerthos @dtluna @lainonymoose personally, I would settle for people learning how to mind their own business. But yes, it can be obnoxious when people try to constantly making a "show" their personal matters (not even just sexuality but also religion/atheism and to a lesser degree politics) in public spaces, even if people should have the right to do it.
-
@dolus I like the idea of having public spaces free of propaganda regarding personal beliefs like sexuality and religion. People are still more than welcome to preach their ideology in a closed space though, like preaching a faith in a church, or holding a dissertation on sexuality in a theater. But that should be done without forcing anyone into it, and without dragging people below 15-18 into it. And specially without attacking people and calling them names because they don't agree or don't want to go.
Monday, 25-Apr-16 12:35:00 UTC from web-
@nerthos Well like I said, people should have the right to preach whatever they want in a public space, that doesn't stop it from being obnoxious. And of course any group should have the right to set up private places for themselves if they want. https://sealion.club/attachment/72368
-
@dolus I guess that's the difference in our ideologies. I'm not fond of people preaching stuff in public. Maybe at plazas at best, but not everywhere. That's basically forcing everyone who doesn't agree to listen to it. Now, if people knew how to not be loud, and be respectful, then maybe my opinion on the matter would change, but right now people aren't ready for that liberty.
Monday, 25-Apr-16 12:43:37 UTC from web-
@nerthos I just think dealing with someone obnoxiously yelling out their opinions in public is (by far) the preferable to the echo chambers you'd end up with if people couldn't present their stance in the public arena. At least then their ideas are much more likely to face challenge and scrutiny than in whatever private club they have setup for themselves. https://sealion.club/attachment/21688
-
@dolus That's a good point too. It's a shame we can't have neutral regulation institutions as the government will always try to filter by ideology, because otherwise presenting what you want to preach to get a permit for public preaching would be good. That way someone who knows enough about psychology and whatever the topic is can point out obvious brainwashing and people are allowed to show their ideas without a risk of emotional extortion like in so many movements.
Monday, 25-Apr-16 12:55:34 UTC from web-
@nerthos True. We'll never be able trust the people handing out these "permits" to be truly neutral, especially not about the kind of controversial stuff that gets barked out by the people standing on their soapboxes.
-
@dolus Imagine an utopia where self-enforced public decency and respect is a widespread thing.
Monday, 25-Apr-16 13:03:19 UTC from web-
@nerthos In the mean time, we can always tune out any variety of crazy with some music and a decent pair of ear buds. https://sealion.club/attachment/91291
-
-
-
-
-
@nerthos I just think dealing with people obnoxiously yelling out their opinions in public is (by far) preferable to the echo chambers you'd end up with if people couldn't present their stance in the public arena. At least then their ideas are much more likely to face challenge and scrutiny than in whatever private club they have setup for themselves. https://sealion.club/attachment/21688
-
-
-
-
@dolus @nerthos @dtluna Many reasons why it's hard to keep it quiet is that unlike the propaganda from the other side of things likes to show, people will still typically prefer a stable long term relationship which, given how many societies are set up, would need some sort of civil partnership to function. Given how things like shared property and hospital visitation and such are set up it becomes a problem if for example your family that may refuse to see you has all these rights over you or to see you in emergency situations rather than your lifelong partner merely because they aren't related or legal partner due to legal discrimination.
-
@lainonymoose Oh, I'm not against changing those regulations either. I do prefer the idea of a new type of civil patnership rather than modifying marriage, and being able to set up partnerships without romantic involvement too. Being able to for example share property with a lifelong friend or make them legally able to take decisions for you when in a bad medical condition if you trust the person more than your family or wife/husband.
Monday, 25-Apr-16 12:52:17 UTC from web-
@nerthos That's more how things should be. Though the marriage issue seems a result of government involvement in marriage when really it should only need to be a religious institution not a legal status. So extending it to same sex couples is merely to remove legal discrimination based on sexual orientation. If government stopped meddling in marriage then this wouldn't even be an issue.
-
@lainonymoose Yeah, that's part of the issue. Trying to regulate tradition through law, and messing with things that should be outside the government's control. If they had just changed "marriage" in law books to "civil union" I can guarantee no one would have complained about gay marriage.
Monday, 25-Apr-16 13:01:36 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
@nerthos in the age of the Internet is there any part of our lives that we should consider private? Big Brother style dragnets are dredging up any feeling that we express via digital means, so the act of communicating has become an act of publication to government and advertisers. North Carolina basically wants "don't ask don't tell" for its citizenry, but it seems impossible in the age of doxxing, leaks, and expansive databases. I'm not sure how we'll ever get back to a place where the citizenry believes they have privacy, let alone a right to it.
-
@ragnarokangel That doesn't mean we can't be discrete and respectful. Just because you have companies and government agencies compiling little bits of data regarding your online movements, there's no reason to think your neighbors will know everything about your private life. In fact few people will know anything about you unless -you- make it public.
Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 21:39:52 UTC from web-
@nerthos I'd like to add/ask one thing. It is one thing to have something being made public by yourself ( though choice or shame ). But in today's age something that is "leaked"/"spilled" by a third party like your neighbours, will also end up in that database. Problem is that a third party can leak/spill things that are not true and have a huge impact. In a very hefty example my neighbour can shout from the rooftops that I have tried to rape her. This will probably not go away, ever, even if human and technological evidence exonerate me from at all being able to in the first place.
Add that to "whenever you do something publically ( like MRA-activism for instance ) you make a bigger target of yourself"
Is the answer now not to do anything because bad things might happen and you end up in Big Brother's Big Bad Database ? If someone forces me into a spotlight ( like the above example ) I will end up in BBBBD anyway. So What can we do to reclaim our sense of "privacy" ?Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 21:49:07 UTC from web-
@critialcloudkicker Well, in an ideal world, crucify that neighbor or sell her off to a prostitution network just for being a god-tier jerk. But anyway, I'd say fill the database with huge amounts of false information.
Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 21:51:09 UTC from web-
@nerthos ... ... ... I kinda like your version of an ideal world, even if it is really "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"-based. I wonder howlong it would take to have a stable region with anarchistic ideal's like that.
Back to BBBBD. Firstly I have NO clue how to have any say in what ends up in BBBBD. Secondly I just read http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-whistleblower-overwhelmed-with-data-ineffective/ ... So they seem to be doing just that what you propose without any of our intervention. So, are we winning yet ? ... Maybe ? ... It seems 50 billion hues of grey to me.Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 21:57:21 UTC from web-
@critialcloudkicker An eye for an eye makes people take better care of their eyes.
Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 21:57:59 UTC from web-
@nerthos "You start !" "No you !" "MOOOOM ! Billy keeps touching my side of the backseat !" dad:"Do not make me have to stop this car !"
We would need to change so many socially structured underlying versions of what is deemed "normal & acceptable & expected behaviour". But, I'd be all in favour. I just hope it is all sustainable. ... I am afraid that one could argue that ISIS/Daesh currently has such a system mixed in with a little tyranical iron grip of whomever holds the most guns.Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 22:02:45 UTC from web-
@critialcloudkicker We don't have much to lose.
Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 22:04:51 UTC from web-
@nerthos Our advances in Math, Science, Medical Science, our current technology, and capitalism. Only one of those 5 I do not really give a damn about.
Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 22:12:00 UTC from web-
@critialcloudkicker We're not going to go back to the stone age over the deaths of a few million idiots.
Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 22:15:25 UTC from web-
@nerthos I'm afraid that the actual number would be closer to a billion in a couple of years. And with numbers of that magnitude you can be sure there will be riots and collateral damage.
Let us just agree that it is probably not a good idea to implement such rules on Earth. However I heard that Ganymede is lovely this time of the yearTuesday, 26-Apr-16 22:29:50 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
@critialcloudkicker Also it's not anarchistic, just heavy handed. I don't like anarchism but people need to be allowed to defend their honor.
Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 21:58:56 UTC from web-
@nerthos That should be a ground-rule. being allowed to defend your honor and integrity and posessions. Like if a burglar came into my house and tried to steal my stuff I should not be handcuffed when the police show up because I broke his jaw.
However that opens pandora's box into so called "honor killings". The Dutch police force had to be schooled to deal with these cases for reasons which have fled my mind. Basically if a woman was raped, declined an arranged marriage, or somehow else brought shame onto her own family, her family would have to see her expunged from the family tree. This is a practice hugely associated with the Middle East and South Asia. ( and not only exclusive to woman, I am pretty sure that a you can bring dishonour on your family as a boy when you break the tradition of winning the 4th grade math showdown or something. ) ... ... I am suddenly afraid of your world now.Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 22:10:49 UTC from web-
@critialcloudkicker Yeah but that's just going overboard. I mean, I /would/ write off a son or daughter if they became thieves or dated an addict or got pregnant before 18, or things like that. But what I meant by defending honor was to have a right to lawfully attack someone for making false accusations or trying to ruin your image.
Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 22:13:18 UTC from web-
@nerthos So there have to be a set of rules, or guidelines, to tell you what is acceptable and whatnot. And who would uphold this book of rules ?
Or would you rather have public hearings whenever something is said to be out of bound, creating something like a "the elder has spoken !" moment. Although I am sure that something like this was done under the SPQR banner. ... Then you would need some universally feared and centrally organized army though.Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 22:24:07 UTC from web -
@nerthos this kind of action would just legalize the ability to attack any detractors. UK defamation laws don't care if the statements are true, and there's no way to determine if releasing info that was disclosed under an NDA is true or if the act of breaking the NDA is defamation enough. Also, "freespeach" having restrictions seems problematic for any society that values the ability to say unpopular things.
-
@ragnarokangel That's perfectly fine IMO. If you swear not to disclose something and then break your word, you can't complain about what happens to you. I value honesty and sticking to your words quite a lot.
Wednesday, 27-Apr-16 01:05:18 UTC from web-
@nerthos Ehhh, I think Snowden is an honest hero, not a trust breaker. YMMV.
-
@ragnarokangel Well yeah, but that's because he sold what's basically a state-operated terrorist agency, not a person. I agree with doing it in such cases.
Wednesday, 27-Apr-16 01:40:04 UTC from web-
@nerthos I'd probably lump most corps that force NDAs on employees as state-sponsored purveyors of terror. Google, m$, NBC, Time Warner, AT&T etc were all complicit in the same spying ring via NDAs.
-
@nerthos oh, or via court issued gag orders. Same cherry, different name.
-
@ragnarokangel I think there should be a clear difference between privately run companies and state run organizations. The former has no obligations to the population, the latter does.
Wednesday, 27-Apr-16 02:15:57 UTC from web-
@nerthos Well, that ain't the case in the US. ATT put repeaters on their fiber cables and shipped the copies to the NSA. Just one example. Also, the US is conducting war via PMCs, but I think we've come far afield from where this started. In my experience, NDAs with no sunset clause are generally designed to hide unethical activity. That's true of Goldman Sachs and Big Oil all the way down to the kind of bs that happens in local elections here.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@critialcloudkicker See, what says there is good. I hope it gets worse and worse for them until they stop collecting data on other countries. I don't really care what the yankee government does to it's own, but they have no right to spy on others. So more terrorist attacks they miss because they're collecting too much=more freedom for the rest of the world.
Tuesday, 26-Apr-16 22:02:32 UTC from web-
@nerthos The problem I'm having is not that there are intelligence agencies like the NSA, CIA, SIGN, or AIVD at all. I think it is a govnerment's duty to protect it's citizens from any and all factors that may harm any form of what a country holds dear. As such I expect a govnerment to at least provide some protection against domestic and forgein terrorism and/or acts of war.
However as that article points out ... ... Let's do a segue, when cooking spaghetti it is a tradition to take 1 wisp of spaghetti and throw it on a tile wall, if it sticks, then it is well done. ( I am saying tradition, not sure if it actually works and is foolproof, but it seems to be ) ... What is currently happening in the USA is they seem to be throwing the entire kitchen block against the wall to see what sticks. This is worrysome because some things are going to stick which are not indicative of a problem at all, parts of the deep frier will stick to a wall, but there is nothing wrong with said applianceTuesday, 26-Apr-16 22:20:51 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
@nerthos I know, none of my neighbors checked to see if I'd signed up for Ashley Madison. Oh wait, they did. You're just waiting for the hackers to drop the database and then all hell breaks loose.
-
-
-
-
