9bananas

genocide, by definition, includes the erasure of a cultural group.

these camps are purpose built to erase a specific culture through "re-education". that is genocide.

the numbers don't matter nearly as much as the intent.

"merely" planning a murder is illegal, same with genocide.

there's this weird idea that an event can only ever be a genocide after all the victims have died. that's not true, and never has been.

those blocks are not that flexible*

never seen them at festivals or some such?

they're much stiffer than they appear at first glance!

^*if^ ^they're^ ^properly^ ^linked^

the "paradox" as the user above pointed out, simply isn't a paradox at all:

"A" = "not A" is never a true statement in any sort of logical framework.

and that's all that the "paradox" really says: a society cannot be tolerant AND intolerant at the same time. it has to pick one.

it boils down to "you can't have it both ways", and that is the intended meaning.

i believe a grave mistake was made by popper when he popularized the concept as a "paradox" rather than a simple logical, and by no means new, conclusion.

in his attempt to frame it in a technical/philosophical context for his peers, he inadvertently made it seem like some kind of nebulous, unknowable dilemma to the general population.

there is not, and has never been, a dilemma here. it's simply a logical conclusion.

it's kind of like the whole misunderstanding of "theory" vs "hypothesis" leading to the now-common "evolution is just a theory" among religious fundamentalists.

"it's just a theory" is wrong, because a theory in a scientific context is proven true, there's nothing hypothetical about it.

in a similar vein, the "paradox" is a only a paradox in the sense that it seems counter-intuitive at first glance that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, but the conclusion is crystal clear.

and that last part seems lost on people, because when the average person hears the word "paradox" they assume that there is no conclusion or definitive answer to something, when in this case, there is a definite conclusion.

and that assumption of "paradox = dilemma" is why people constantly misunderstand the paradox of tolerance. the assumption is wrong.

popper called the conclusion "paradoxical", which isn't the same as something being an actual paradox.

i really wish they'd used a different name for the concept, because the name is a terrible case of misnomer...

in other contexts, your husband could very well have a point...but not when it's about the expanse.

when the entire point is realism, these little things, even when they seem pedantic, become jarring.

after all; it's a series by space nerds, for space nerds! ;)

to be fair to them: "horseshoe theory" is in itself a bad faith argument designed specifically to derail and disrupt leftist discussions...soooo...why bother with much of an argument?

it IS bunk, it's pretty obvious that it is bunk, and it takes up a tremendous amount of time and effort to constantly repeat just how bunk it is.

not saying you are wrong, at least in general.

it's just that this particular topic takes up way more space in online discussions than it has any right to, so i get the frustration - and unwillingness to explain something faaaaairly obvious - of the previous user.

a bad faith argument doesn't really deserve a proper answer: wasting time on it is exactly the point of bad faith arguments. that's why they so successful in the first place; they create no-win scenarios. damned if you ignore them, damned if you don't. that's why the right constantly comes up with new ones.

I've also got both, kinda; no hyperactivity just the attention deficit...

and yeah, i agree: that's why I said it can look the same to an outside observer, not that it feels or works the same.

the term I've heard for the task switching problem you describe is "autistic inertia"; basically just means that it's more difficult to start a task, and end a task (or switching to a new task), but once a task is underway there isn't an issue. it's just the starting/stopping part that's hard...

eh, kind of hit or miss with autistic people, afaik.

hyperfocus is a big thing for autists, which is a problem with attention, since it keeps you from choosing what you want to focus on.

so if you've got an assignment due, and your brain decides we're gonna focus on [different thing] right now, possibly for days on end, that can be a serious problem.

it can also look basically identical to ADHD for outside observers, since the result is often the same "they didn't to [the thing]!"...

and that then gets mistaken for a lack of motivation, which it isn't really:

it's a lack of ability to choose what to be motivated about.

it's one of the reasons that there's so much overlap in diagnosis of ADHD and ASD: symptoms can present very similarly to outside observers

• good on you to make an account, welcome!
• that's one hell of a choice for a username, genuinely made me laugh, so cheers for that!
• have a nice morning/day/evening :D

why WOULD you believe that??

what natural person is identifiable by an automated message?

explain that.

so you think that an automated account like, say "[email protected]", is somehow personal data?

you forget that emails are constantly used by automated systems. those are, obviously, not personal data, because they can't identify a person.

and that's just the first example that comes to mind.

this is exactly why the answer to the question "do emails fall under the GDPR?" is "it depends."

"[email protected]" <-- most likely IS personal data.

"[email protected]" <-- almost certainly NOT personal data.

"email" as a concept does not automatically make it personal data.

it is only personal data, if it is connected to data that can reasonably be used to identify a natural person.

is the entire concept of nuance just lost on you??

some email addresses are personal data, other are not.

IT DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT!!

this is the difference between a professional and a layman: a layman doesn't even know, how much they don't know.

no, the gdpr.eu website is not the official website of the EDPB, that's this one here.

the gdpr.eu website is maintained by the proton foundation, which is why it is, as you correctly recognized, a good resource for practical information about the GDPR.

"these ideas" boil down to "it always depends on the context".

that's exactly the point you keep missing: the GDPR cannot be generalized to make blanket statements like "usernames are always personal data" <--- this is a false statement.

and this is by design!

it's supposed to be contextual!

usernames are potentially, sometimes, even often personal data, but the law very specifically says that this is NOT always the case.

that's what the excerpt you quoted says: that these sorts of data are commonly considered personal data. whether or not something is personal data depends on the connected data.

with some, very limited, exceptions. for example: full names and addresses. those are actually always personal data.

the strange idea here is assuming that the GDPR allows anyone to make blanket statements without context.

also: STILL no explanation how anything in the article in any way relates to Fediverse services being somehow "illegal"?

how did you go from an article about "ad-tracking is illegal" to "the Fediverse is illegal"??

that's an Olympic level leap in mental gymnastics!