Actual child sexual abuse is equally as bad as fiction? Did you know there’s a difference between truth & fiction? I doubt abuse victims would agree these are the same or equally as bad.

Pulling the X-only client while keeping the everything including X client doesn’t seem to accomplish anything. Neither client is actively generating anything: it’s server side. Your argument seems to be the client that accesses bad needs to be blocked, but the client that accesses bad & worse somehow does not.

This post would be greater with accessibility.

explain the problem: irrational criticism & fallacies aren’t scientific

problem?

seems like you’re drawing on a guilt by association fallacy

Science is knowledge discovered through the scientific process. Knowledge isn’t belief.

The browser can access X & any website. Isn’t material produced from actual child sexual abuse worse than fictions generated without it?

Define NSFW & explain how this qualifies?

Should they pull every web browser, too? They can clearly be used for nefarious purposes.

Nice screenshot of a mouse pointer.

With all the cranks on here, downvotes are a sign of doing something right. Some instances hide downvotes entirely. Others offer settings to not show them.

Not sure blocking them affects the downvote count shown to you.

So, your argument is that

explanation = approval

? That pathetically superficial take pretty much amounts to media illiteracy^[1]: see fallacy Confusing an Explanation with an Excuse.

Can anyone factually explain atrocities in your presence without you treating any explanation as a defense even when it’s explicitly stated that the explained subject is immoral?

They answered the question & your not liking the answer doesn’t make it less true. There are better ways to deal with facts than insufferable irrationality.

Media literacy: how do quotes & paraphrases work?

@JUNlPER
this is always one that gets me. so many people are unable to realize that you can present characters doing something bad without endorsing it. not sure when this kind of baby brained thing started but its so silly to see so often

@ducktales2020
more than anything they conflate Presenting Something with Agreeing With Something, but don’t apply it to good guy/bad guy narratives. when everyone’s bad they short circuit

Viral infections are cured by eradicating them entirely or to undetectable levels. “Humanity is a virus” is not a condemnation of overpopulation but of humanity. Genocide would be inadequate to “cure” the planet of a “human infection”: only speciescide would suffice.

Lemmy has an odd fixation on ecofascism when that’s not implied. No form of government is suggested with the eradication of all humanity, only the absence of any. Any anti-anthropocentrism such as ecocentrism or a morality generalized beyond human welfare is capable of accounting for such thought.

People here tend to fixate on their pet theories that scapegoat capitalism for everything including that humanity’s drain on ecological resources exceeds Earth’s rate of regeneration without acknowledging that their alternatives don’t address the problem, either.

Although governments are far more able than individuals and firms acting singly to take action to protect the environment, they often fail to do so. The centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe, where governments controlled production, had a particularly poor record on pollution control. Per capita mortality from air pollution in Eastern Europe (outside the EU) and China remains high relative to the EU and North America.

In particular, the Soviet economy—with constitutional guarantees to continuously improve living standards & steadily grow productive forces—caused disproportionately worse ecological damage than the US’s. All economic systems have the same capacity to degrade the environment & deplete stocks of natural resources. Without adequate policies to protect the environment, improving & maintaining living standards with the continuous economic growth necessary to do that threatens the environment.

Moreover, human activity before capitalism has led to extinctions of megafauna, plants, & animals dependent on those plants. The quaternary megafauna extinction was likely driven by overhunting by humans. Those extinctions & increased fires coinciding with the arrival of humanity to Australia transformed the ecosystem from mixed rainforest to drier landscapes. Aboriginal landscape burning

may have caused the extinction of some fire-sensitive species of plants and animals dependent upon infrequently burnt habitats

More recently, they killed off the elephant bird likely due to major environmental alterations & overconsumption of their eggs.

As long as people prioritize anthropocentric concerns without considering the environment, I find it an expedient starting point to remind them that exterminating all of humanity will end humanity’s concerns, too, while saving the planet from them. It’s a rhetorical move to stimulate more practical discussion. Around here, though, they never seem to get past that starting point, but instead protract in their useless debates over economic/political systems.

I find it pretty ironic

You are a victim of the propaganda

I guess it was effective.

Yep, facts are “ironic” to someone who doesn’t let evidence interfere with their opinions.

You are a victim of ignorance & denialism of conventional political science, history, widely reported facts.

Your ignorance is effective at convincing yourself.

It doesn’t seem you followed any of the links clearly showing leftist factions in the party exist, their positive government intervention policies (social safety nets, investment in public services, economic controls) in pursuit of a fairer, more egalitarian society, or their criticisms of social & economic inequities including from underregulated capitalism. You seem to ignore criticism of capitalism & the US economy in the news from leftist democrats urging better regulation & public interventions: AOC, Warren, etc.

not a single anti-capitalist

Not the definition or a requirement of leftism. Leftism is the pursuit of social & political equality and egalitarianism.

That modern liberalism is leftist follows from definitions & straightforward logic. Political scientists recognize leftist liberals

Political scientists and other analysts usually regard the left as including anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.

Many of these ideologies accept regulated market capitalism in a mixed economy.

I am not here to debate anyone

Too bad: you shouldn’t expect your falsehoods to go unchallenged. Contrary to your flat-out wrong opinion contradicting conventional political science, history, & widely reported information, the Democratic party includes a major leftist faction often followed in the news.

The media often refers to the democrats as “left wing”, despite democrats being very decidedly right wing.

Nope, they’re a big tent party with centrist & leftist factions. Divisions between factions clearly show up in their voting patterns.

The leftist modern liberal & progressive factions & their caucuses have been a major part of the Democratic party since the New Deal, and their influences trace back to the late 19th century in US politics.

Britannica summarizes the 19th century emergence of modern liberalism to address broader social & economic obstacles to equal access & liberty than the classical liberal focus on excesses of government power.

liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

• Classical liberalism: minimal government to eliminate traditional obstacles to individual freedom
• Modern liberalism: positive government intervention to address social & economic inequalities in the cause of individual freedom

When every challenging question is presupposed to be “in bad faith”, no critical questioning “in good faith” is possible. “In bad faith” is just pretense to evade genuine debate & critical self-reflection.

So the comment

Remember he needs

is false. Thanks for agreeing.

Trump approves

The answers to all those questions may be yes.

People who make those works aren’t necessarily the best authorities on their condition even if they have it: they’re still fallible humans with blind spots who’ve only lived as themselves without another version of themselves to compare. Much like how competent speakers may lack explicit awareness of the subtle nuances of their language & may succumb to over-analysis suggesting false rules, just having a condition doesn’t make someone acutely aware of the distinctions that set it apart, so they may misattribute.

They may also be flat out wrong about having the condition, since it is the internet after all.

Some of it is a matter of degree where it’s relatable to everybody within manageable limits but a dysfunction beyond those limits.