I support robust enforcement of anti hate speech laws. In fact I’ve reported hate speech/ hatecrime to the police before.

We’re not talking about laws, we’re talking about social media platform policies.

Social media platforms connect people from regions with different hatespeech laws so " enforcing hatespeech laws" is impossible to do consistently.

If users engage in crimes using the platform they are subject to the laws that they are subject to.

I don’t care that it’s legal to advocate for genocide where a preacher is located, or at the corporation’s preferred jurisdiction, I don’t want my son reading it.

The question was: is there a way a platform can be totally free speech and stop hate speech. I think the answer is “kinda”

Listen to your body, assess how its feedback comports with your goals, then use your brain to decide what to do.

I think it may be possible if you understand a difference between the right to speak and the right to be heard.

Ie the right to say something doesn’t create an obligation in others to hear it, nor to hear you in the future.

If I stand up on a milk crate in the middle of a city park to preach the glory of closed source operating systems, it doesn’t infringe my right to free speech if someone posts a sign that says “Microsoft shill ahead” and offers earplugs at the park entrance. People can choose to believe the sign or not.

A social media platform could automate the signs and earplugs. By allowing users to set thresholds of the discourse acceptable to them on different topics, and the platform could evaluate (through data analysis or crowd sourced feedback) whether comments and/or commenters met that threshold.

I think this would largely stop people from experiencing hatespeech, (one they had their thresholds appropriately dialed in) and disincentivize hatespeech without actually infringing anybody’s right to say whatever they want.

There would definitely be challenges though.

If a person wants to be protected from experiencing hatespeech they need to empower some-one/thing to censor media for them which is a risk.

Properly evaluating content for hatespeech/ otherwise objectionable speech is difficult. Upvotes and downvotes are an attempt to do this in a very coarse way. That/this system assumes that all users have a shared view of what content is worth seeing on a given topic and that all votes are equally credible. In a small community of people, with similar values, that aren’t trying to manipulate the system, it’s a reasonable approach. It doesn’t scale that well.

I’m not sure that the best way for a software developer to support the war effort is by carrying a gun.

Hopefully if they support the defense of Ukraine, they find a way to support the Defence of Ukraine. I’m hesitant to prescribe the best way to do that.

Yeah that’s a good point. Maybe I should amend my statement to say something like:

If this seems like an absurd hypothetical, consider reframing it. Multiply all the numbers by a factor of between 1,000 to 1,000,000 and make them “our soldiers”, “bystanders” and “enemy soldiers” respectively.

I think these scenarios might be easier to analyze if we made them a bit more realistic.

This an analogy for military intervention. If we empower our military to be proactive, we can save one "good guy"^TM by killing 3 bystanders. But if NATO’s adversaries are participating too we lose 3 of our "good guy"^TM

Is it using the quadcopters to control the carrier? Was this just a test? The second one showed no damage from the first.

Thanks for the feedback, but I don’t find it very useful. I did not say that the mother voted with the goal of supporting transphobic policies, I said something stronger.

It is my view that a person cannot love a trans person unconditionally AND support transphobic politicians. Ie it doesn’t matter why the mother supports the politician.

If you love somebody you will not support politicians that want to unfairly discriminate against them. Even if the politicians have better policies in other areas.

Families need to understand one another and not devolve into a political shitshow

What makes you think anyone is misunderstanding their family here?

OP and everyone else is at fault for the drama

Obviously the family is dysfunctional, that’s what this post is about. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to try to apportion blame from where we are. Could OP have more effectively lobbied her parents not to support transphobic politicians? Probably, but we don’t know. Is OP trying to emotionally manipulate her mother? Maybe, we don’t know. My comment was advice on how OP can end her relationship firmly, while leaving the door open to reconciliation down the road.

I wouldn’t be a cis-het-white-man if I didn’t feel entitled to weigh in: I think you should send a handwritten note that says something like:

I will always have room in my life for a mother who loves me unconditionally, but a mother like that would not support politicians with transphobic policies. I do have love for you, but the choices you’ve made break my heart, and it’s not healthy for me to have that sort of negativity in my life.

When I’m lonely, I’ll try to focus on the good times we had together, and not harbor bitterness. I forgive myself for not being the child you imagined. I hope you can do the same.

Make sure to sign it with “Love”

You could also list some of the positive memories you’re going to try to focus on. You could ask your sister to help you come up with a list. You don’t need to share the whole letter with her just say that you’re trying to come up with a list of happy memories for when you’re feeling down. Maybe that should be a conversation while you do something else together so you’re not just staring at each other at the kitchen table while trying to think. For me that that something else would be a game of pool, for others it might be cooking or jogging or gardening or walking through an art gallery/museum.

If anybody has any feedback for me that would help me better understand OPs situation I’d love to hear it.

Yeah I agree that can’t keep him locked up, but could they jail him, because honestly that isn’t nothing. Obviously it’s career suicide for anyone involved but you know.

Yeah, and I’m positing that the probability he did not have a penis is at least 0.5%.

The Bible is not accurate regarding Jesus’ early life.

I don’t think it’s wrong to exercise an iota of skepticism.

Was Luke there at the circumcision? What was his source?

Wouldn’t Jesus being trans and Luke being misinformed (or actually trying to avoid outting him) explain why there isn’t really any testimony about Jesus’s life during puberty? It was an incredibly misogynistic era right? Is it inconceivable for a person without a penis to try to pass as a man in that era?

If a person can better appreciate Jesus by understanding him as a trans-man should a christian tell them they’re wrong? Does it put them in spiritual jeopardy? Is it dishonest to say “maybe”? I don’t think so.

Jesus on the other hand 100% had a dick. […] Jesus was 100% biologically male.

Oh did they find his body?

Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to conclude that the probability of Jesus being biologically male equals the human average of males being biologically male? Ie 99.5%.

Couldn’t his radical compassion for outcasts and the downtrodden be related to personal struggles growing up with gender dysphoria?

If you believe he was conceived in a virgin, wouldn’t it be MORE likely that he had XX chromosomes?

At least there are no centrists in here claiming it’s 3.5

I think its like any other utility (water or electricity or methane) except that you pay for the generation separately. So imagine that for electricity you pay a service fee to the grid operator to keep your connection capable of a certain amperage, and you separately pay the hydroelectric dam for the power you use.

ISPs are the grid operator saying, yes you pay for 200 amp service but you’ve already bought enough power this month. Don’t run your AC for the rest of the month.

Right I get that, but the underlying value that the prohibitions are designed around is promoting humility and preventing vanity.

I don’t think jewelry wearing is compatible with the Amish conception of propriety and modesty but I’m not going to say it wouldn’t happen.

If he comes back to the North, he would be tortured&executed with his family.

Are you basing this statement on anything other than your impression that the North Korean regime is cruel for the sake of being cruel, and everyone in the military and government is incompetent?

It might be true, but it’s also possible that the North Koreans would use it as the obvious propaganda coup it is and send him on speaking tours all over the country/world.

It’s also quite possible that he’s mentally unwell and isn’t making rational choices. Or that he’s trying to escape an abusive situation.

Don’t get me wrong, the North Korean government is not good, I’m just saying that the assumption he’ll be tortured and executed underestimates them.

PS. When you say “comes back” it means that you are in that place. So your sentence implies that you’re in North Korea. I’m sure you meant “goes back”.

Can’t use 100’s in a lot of places.

Yeah that sounds like what was explained to me