flamingos

Damn, Jedward got old.

Some vetting process:

Cllr Broadhurst has previously posted an image to the platform which compared Islamic dress to bin bags.

A now-deleted post on his page included an image of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler saying he would have been a “legend” if he had targeted Muslims.

Apparently the game has AI generated CSAM in it. Something, something, every accusation is a confession.

I’m not sure about all of it and had to remove the racist/sexist stuff, just because I don’t know any software on the fediverse with controversies like this…

Soapbox, a fork of Pleroma, is made by a TERF who previously worked for Gab.

This is pretty categorically not a conservative forum, so I don't really see your point. If you want to discuss the Biblical definition of man/woman and whether that includes trans people in a theology post then sure? That would be appropriate context.

What do you mean by epistemologically?

I mean that fundamentally, there is nothing more true about a cis person saying they're a man than a trans person saying they're a man.

I don’t really think it’s fair equivalence to make. I think it would be transphobic to claim someone is less intelligent or should be penalised in society, although I am probably approaching this with a philosophical/theological view rather than how people should be treated.

I don’t really like the idea of being told how to think about things. I think this is a slight step too far, if it means forcing someone to agree with something they’re not comfortable with agreeing with.

This is a social discussion forum not a linguist philosophy one, the rules and guidelines are going to reflect this. Part of that is setting the boundaries for what opinions are and aren't acceptable, and what the working definitions of what we consider bigotry are. Saying these opinions aren't allowed is necessarily going to exclude people who actually believe them.

Besides, epistemologically, there is no reason to see a trans person's "I'm a man" as less than a cis person's "I'm a man". If you want to have these discussions, then you need to do it in an appropriate context. The comment section under a trans article isn't really the best place as this comes across as trollish and like you're trying to sneak in transphobia under the guise of philosophy.

Is this really unbiased if it’s what "Twitter lefty shitposter"s think? I’ve found that group to be pretty toxic and malicious, and chosen to avoid that crowd.

That video is mostly an application of Wittgenstein's idea of family resemblances to the 'what is a woman' debate, should be right up your ally if what you want is philosophical discussion.

Depends on which guideline they break. The 41% one will probably be an insta-ban. Others will likely be an initial warning followed by temp bans escalating to a permaban.

Good point, that's definitely something I see fairly often. I don't like it myself (also trans), but should be on here.

Use a native app like a mobile client or Blorp if you're on Mac?

Ponytail Yang >>>

Reminder, the SC didn't rule that trans people had to be excluded from gender segregated things, only that they could. Labour doesn't have to do this, they're choosing to, and even if they did, they're the fucking government. What is the point of an elective dictatorship if the party of government is going to be so unwilling to actually change anything?

The main government proposal is to let AI firms use copyright-protected work to build their models without permission, unless the copyright holders signal they do not want their work to be used in that process – a solution that critics say is impractical and unworkable.

The critics are right, this sounds ridiculous. Like, how would it work if a work is updated to include such an opt-out, does the copyright holder have to tell every AI company about the change, or do AI companies have to continuously monitor the material they use for updates? It better not be the later as AI companies are already bad enough with their horrendous scraping of the web.