Indeed, the whole point of my comment is that your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not. Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.
I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.
In the context of trans people, anti trans rhetoric goes away beyond “unapproved” or “unpopular” though. It’s straight up non-factual pseudoscience at best. A lot of it is straight up lies and libel/slander. It does real, lasting harm. That’s not “thought crime” as you describe.
Some virus
Iirc the increase in pandemics has been an expected result of global warming.
For my money, there are three existential threats to the human species. You’ve already listed two: global warming and nuclear war. IMO the third is microplastics (although PFAS could be combined with microplastics to make a category I think we could reasonably call “forever chemicals”)
I hate him saying “get your mind out of the gutter” as if even thinking about people who are gay is itself a perverted sexual act.
Gay people exist. Acknowledging this and discussing whether a piece of media is directed at them is not “mind in gutter” stuff.
I don’t want to go so far as to say this person is homophobic, but it sure does sound like some internalized homophobia, perhaps.
same way an LLM is able to produce coherent and convincing sentences by statistically determining what word is likely to follow another
To me this implies that the navigation AI is going to hallucinate parts of its model of the world, because it’s basing that model on what’s statically the most likely to be there as opposed to what’s actually there. What could go wrong?
Ah yes, Hanlon’s razor. Genuinely a great one to keep in mind at all times, along with it’s corollary Clarke’s law: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”
But in this particular case I think we need the much less frequently cited version by Douglas Hubbard: “Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system.”
IIRC two states and several major cities have also successfully implemented rank choice, and in every case it’s been because of Democrats.
As more and more local governments make the change, it’ll become more popular and gain more support on the national level.
The problem is that any third party that manages to eventually displace a member of the duopoly immediately replaces that party in the new duopoly.
Because the duopoly is a result of First Past the Post (FPTP) voting. As long as we use FPTP the duopoly will persist, just with different parties filling the two roles.
Anything short of switching away from FPTP for some form of Rank Choice is going to be a band-aid, mere temporary relief, and not even a very good one.
People also forget that Google doesn’t give the same results for everyone. Sure you could use incognito mode, but how many people are going to do that when they’re looking for normal stuff?
We need additional regulation about profit margins and executive compensation, or something along those lines, to prevent cost increases from being passed on to the consumer when it could just as easily come out of the profit margin or executive compensation.
It’s a good joke, right?
The only alternative is to use the tools we have: let the free market work, but not at the expense of the employees. This means, yes, wage increase will be passed into the customer, who will reduce how much they use the service (decrease demand), which will either drive down supply to justify higher prices or drive down prices to increase demand again. Either option creates opportunities for competitors to enter the market which also drives down prices.
All that said, let me be clear: I prefer option A over option B, but I’m not getting my hopes up.
Great video, thanks for sharing.
Well I know they forced some subreddits go back to SFW if it was obvious the NSFW was just to protest. Maybe that’s the case for the subreddit you’re looking at?
Only because The Party has no regard for the truth. If, in 1984, The Party were concerned with truth at all then thought crime would also be concerned with the truth. This is because the real definition of thought crime in the context of that story is any thought that isn’t approved by The Party.
But you’ve brought the phrase “thought crime” out if that context and into the real world. Here, truth matters.
Completely untrue, and very disturbing that you’d think otherwise.
That’s not why you’re stupid, it has nothing to do with me.