Yliaster

Not the original commenter, but you seem to know a bit about communism (I’m currently looking into it)

Would you be up for a discussion on communism?

Goodbye!

That’s a fallacious argument. It’s like saying using a laptop made in 2026 is the exact same as using a laptop made in 2010 for privacy standards. News flash, it ain’t.

The killswitches in question wouldn’t apply to all new vehicles, or well, they would just be EVs, because they’re planning to ban regular vehicles.

Please restate concisely, then.

Not all GPT users are American/residing in America

Even foss is under attack. Linux (amongst other OS) are being forced to comply with integrating OS-level age verification checks, which means invading privacy and contributing to mass surveillance.

People have been arrested for developing end-to-end encryption too.

Them being electric/having digital components lets companies monitor your vehicles the same way they do monitor your online presence.

You can look up the killswitch thing, it’s planned in Europe iirc. It’s being sold as being introduced so as to “reduce drunk driving”, but obviously once that’s in place it can be used to manufacture car accidents and the sort.

Any time someone says these “technological advancements” are anything but innocuous, they get rammed as “fear-mongering”.

Gonna get blasted for this, given the overall sentiment here in the comments towards EVs, but EVs are going to be used to monitor people everywhere they go and have killswitches, and other shit I’d not wanna deal with.

You can say that individual police members aren’t more likely than mass shooters to kill people, sure.

However, it is still true that the police is that big and they still killed much more people.

What does community policing look like?

Why is the number of mass shooters and police themselves relevant here? We’re talking about the deaths the respective groups caused, and you haven’t provided any counter-evidence/stats for that.

Yeah, I remember reading in my psych textbook that ice cream consumption was correlated with homicidal behaviour, which is obviously not causal.

Microslop.

Why is curbing use unideal?

That… doesn’t sound very compelling.

Alcoholism is associated with disease and death, and wine is just another form of alcohol.

makes sense.

Do you extend this reasoning to corrupt institutions? Eg: people saying, “fuck ice”.

Source for the first claim?

How do you respond to verbal abuse without assuming bad faith?

Further, self-control and attention span are not measures of intelligence.

You can be restrained and/or have a long attention span and still not be intelligent.

someone says “we should torture indigenous people” how can one glean that they don’t truly believe that?

It’s generally safe to assume they mean it, unless proven otherwise. People make hateful and racist remarks all the time, sadly, and it’s almost invariably a consistent pattern of behaviour that goes beyond plausible deniability. The line of reasoning you’ve provided me reads as strangely apologetic and bordering solipsistic.

I would assume it’s satire

Even if the hateful remarks are understood to be ‘‘a joke’’, I don’t think that’s any less damning. These are not the type of things to joke about, and most reasonable and/or decent people realize that.

It’s been my experience they eventually do. If someone is telling me I look nice and I take it as a genuine compliment, but they’re acting in bad faith, that’s going to drive them up the fucking wall that I’m so dumb that I don’t assume bad faith like they do.

Can you give me an example of something like that playing out on a serious real-life topic such as politics/race/genocide etc?