𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

  • 0 Posts
  • 95 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 16th, 2023

help-circle



  • The “Nothing to hide” argument isn’t really an argument, it’s more of a conclusion. That conclusion is then taken to support mass surveillance. It’s also not a logical fallacy (even if it’s wrong). It may be “proven” using logical fallacies, but that doesn’t make it a logical fallacy on its own. So I think it’s correct to remove the logical fallacy text.

    I think the more effective defense against this one is to provide counterexamples for why you might care about mass surveillance:

    • People do have something to hide. E.g. browser history, religious/political beliefs, etc…
    • You may not have something to hide now, but in the future you may wish it was still hidden. You can’t unpublish information these days.
    • People you care about may have something to hide, and not caring about mass surveillance puts them at risk.
    • Relatively harmless individual datapoints can be combined to create harmful datasets that allow for mass exploitation.
    • Governments may abuse mass surveillance, whereby you may experience negative effects from journalists/political dissidents being silenced
    • Etc…









  • the direction I take to “steer it away” is to look at it as something universal, which is simply more helpful to understand why it happens, not to tie attention to men’s issues specifically.

    I understand your intentions, but it doesn’t have the intended effect. By doing this you are making the assumption that the way women experience these issues is (close to) the same as the way men experience it. But you can’t really assume that, and often people disagree.

    When women want to talk about problems they face, it’s important to hear them out and address their issue, instead of what amounts to ‘deflecting’ to a “grander” issue. At its core it’s a whataboutism that derails the conversation, and that’s not what you intended.

    So my genuine advice is: don’t. Address these problems one by one. The solutions can often be different.

    You have to assume that

    I believe we’ve come at the point where women and men issues are so intertwined, so much permeating each other that it’s no longer helpful to see them as separate issues to begin with.

    may well not be correct, and it can feel incredibly invalidating to people by assuming that this is the case.


  • As much as you may be right that both men and women are experiencing this, the post was talking about how women experience it. And when women speak out about it, it’s apparently hard to talk about just that and instead the male experience has to be discussed as well.

    Again, I really don’t think you intended anything bad here. But as you said:

    If all sides have an opportunity to say things without being interrupted, there is no point in chiming in and saying the other side has it worse.

    Women try to talk about it (e.g. via this topic), but you interrupted by chiming in how men are also affected. That might well be true, but it’s also the kind of interruption that can be frustrating because, and I say this as a man, the experience women have is probably different (on average) from the experience men have.

    You’re not one of the voices in the comic shouting “misandrist” or anything, but it is a kind of “and what about the men?” type of statement. And I don’t think you’re trying to be dismissive here at all and I do believe your intentions are good, but the result here is that what women want to talk about is once again not talked about, which is what the comic is about.

    Your well-intentioned statement I think perhaps unbeknownst to you is steering the discussion away from the intended topic. And it’s exactly that problem that this comic addresses.





  • Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?

    Did you completely fail to read the part “except where authorized”? That bit of legalese is a blanket “you can’t use this software in a way we don’t want to”.

    You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. It does not allow you to download anything

    Ah, you just have zero clue what you’re talking about, but you think you do. I can point out exactly where you are on the Dunning-Kruger curve.

    This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we’re done here.

    Hilarious coming from you, who has ignored every bit of information people have thrown at you to get you to understand. But agreed, this is not going anywhere.


  • Yes, by allowing you to download the video file to the browser. This snippet of legal terms didn’t really reinforce any of your points.

    But it actually is helpful for mine. In legalese, downloading and storing a file actually falls under reproduction, as this essentially creates an unauthorized copy of the data if not expressly allowed. It’s legally separate from downloading, which is just the act of moving data from one computer to another. Downloading also kind of pedantically necessitates reproduction to the temporary memory of the computer (eg RAM), but this temporary reproduction is most cases allowed (except when it comes to copyrighted material from an illegal source, for example).

    In legalese here, the “downloading” specifically refers to retrieving server data in an unauthorized manner (eg a bot farm downloading videos, or trying to watch a video that’s not supposed to be out yet). Storing this data to file falls under the legal definition of reproduction instead.