CinnamonRingCumGlaze86 will be significantly less able to use their 6th grade reading level to convince people that modern medicine is bad because Pre-Historical Witches didn’t have AIDS bro.

You don’t need accounts tied to ID to ban such content.

I’ve got this crazy idea where we can use GPUs to render 3D scenes efficiently.

A broken system will eventually work when the broken pieces have been replaced.

I think that comes from Andrew Kelley having strong opinions, sometimes with harsh language added. It’s like the internet is over-correcting for the much stronger and harsher early internet days, so he’s admonished for being “unprofessional”. I don’t care for this sanded-down squeaky-clean vision of the internet that is being pushed for, particularly by the corporate crowd.

If your point is to stifle dissent, then sure. Whoever controls the narrative will make contradiction look unacceptable. If your name is tied to an opinion that may be construed as contrary to the dominant narrative, you will hesitate to post it, and if you do post it, then you will be taken down with very real consequences because of that tie to your real identity. Employers already look at social media to determine if your behavior is considered acceptable to them, even if you keep your professional life completely separate. Your proposal only destroys free speech further by making it worth less and less the cost of expressing.

Make no mistake, the excuse of protecting children from pornography is just that, an excuse, to restrict freedom of speech by putting into place the mechanisms to identify people and strike at them for daring to express their opinions. Pornography being in the form of books, magazines, tapes, DVDs, whatever physical media did not necessarily control access. There are many with stories of how they managed to gain access as children, either through a parent’s collection or otherwise. Similarly, this internet ID bullshit can be defeated, but it’ll be backed by stricter and stricter legislation to make defeating it illegal and they won’t be prosecuting children or the companies providing the ID verification service, they’ll be prosecuting adults using tools to defeat these mechanisms to express their opinions.

They certainly are real, but their machinations are misunderstood. They often consist of people in poor countries looking to make a buck. Follow the money. You’ll find that even if you were to build a great firewall for your country of residence, troll farms will still reach you, and that domestic astroturf ain’t any greener than foreign astroturf.

I’m not going to give up my privacy over your fear of foreign bogeymen.

Not surprising considering the country was founded by terrorists and continues to honor them to this day.

There are better ways to counter a cult of personality than a cult of divine providence.

Gonna hafta blow it to get all the lithium out.

I like to buy the least I can every day. If the economy relied on my purchasing habits, it would collapse.

It’s always “do a ‘little more’ here and there” for work, but if you ask to be paid a little more for that work then they lose their minds. These parasites are the most entitled pieces of shit ever.

But I am a historian, so I will close on a historian’s note: History shows us that the right to literacy came at a heavy cost for many Americans, ranging from ostracism to death. Those in power recognised that oppression is best maintained by keeping the masses illiterate, and those oppressed recognised that literacy is liberation.

It’s scary how much damage is being done to education, not just from AI but also the persistent attacks on public education in the US over decades, hampering the system with things like No Child Left Behind and diverting funds to private schools with vouchers in the name of “school choice”. On top of that there are suggestions that teachers aren’t even needed and that students could be taught with AI. It’s grim.

Exactly how strongly do I think it is? Because you seem to know.

You told me I don’t know anything about linguistics and psychology, yet now you’re offended because I read your post saying things like “the language that we use shapes our thoughts more than we realize” and “people who are most averse to the idea that thought can be shaped by such subtle factors tend to the least rational” and inferred that you think it’s a strong influence.

I’m saying that playing language police in this way is a waste of time and effort because even if you get people to play along, you haven’t really accomplished much of anything when people just reach for a synonym for the exact same purpose.

It’s already considered particularly hateful to insult people based on their appearance as opposed to their actions, so I’m not sure what your point is.

Well that’s the thing, the word is not being used to insult people who are actually afflicted with the condition.

Lecture me about knowing linguistics when you understand what “more so” means. I’m not averse to the idea that thought can be shaped by such subtle factors, I’m saying that it’s not as strongly shaped by it as you think it is.

So if I, as an ugly person, dislike people using “ugly” as an insult, should that mean everyone is not allowed to use the word?

The point of an insult is to insult someone. You’re not going to rile anyone up calling them a chauvinist, arrogant, willfully ignorant, or anti-intellectual. It’s the intention and emotion behind the words that matter, not necessarily the words themselves. If anything, it’s our thoughts that shape our language more so than the other way around.

Did we get less fascist than the 90s when people were using the word freely? What do we do with the words “moronic”, “idiotic”, “stupid”, “imbecilic”, etc?