Compass and Straight Edge @compass_straight_edge@qoto.org

@veer66 I can't understand anything you said but RISC-V is good.

@GaoBot scari

@realcaseyrollins
Interesting blog. I was reading the "Project Bluesky: Good or bad for twitter" and I have similar concerns.

Have you ever heard of the term Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? It is pretty much what it looks like. The term was of internal use of Microsoft and came public during the Internet Explorer monopoly lawsuit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace_extend_extinguish

Side note: Many people think that Microsoft's current friendliness towards Open Source is an attempt at EEE.

@p
Were you implying that you would gib me a KV-2 gf if you knew what anime she was from? That would be very nice of you.
@sjw

@p
as in what anime? that would be girls und panzer.
@sjw

@p
gib KV-2 gf

Does having a cannon make her a trap?
@sjw

@sjw About an hour ago, no? I might have been something with the server.

Today's fallacy: Persuasive definition.
This is a fallacy that you've most certainly encountered but didn't know the name of. It is very common in political discussions (like most fallacies for that matter).

It consists in giving a slightly unusual definition of a loaded term, to "sneak something" under that definition.

As an example, consider the statement:
"If you remain neutral in an unjust situation, then you are the oppressor."

Here "oppressor" is a loaded term. Most people consider oppression to be something bad and do not want to be labeled as an "oppressor".

The dictionary and usual definition of "oppressor" is [1]:
"a person who uses power or authority in a cruel, unjust, or harmful way ".

The dictionary and usual definition of "neutral" is [2]:
"not engaged on either side".

It is clear that it does not follow from the definitions that an "neutral" person is also an "oppressor".

The objective of the statement is to propose a different definition to the term "oppressor", but it does not do so in a clear manner. It "sneaks" something under a loaded term to "scare" people into accepting the new definition.
A persuasive definition is analogous to "well poisoning" but it works for words and ideas instead of people.

The use of the "persuasive definition" is a flaw in the argument. Like all other fallacies it doesn't imply that the conclusion is incorrect, just that the argument is.

According to wikipedia[3] the term "persuasive definition" was introduced by the philosopher Charles Stevenson as part of his emotive theory of meaning.

Other examples are:
=> "Abortion is murder";
=> "Prostitution is paid rape";
=> "About three other examples I had thought of but forgot.";
=> "Feel free to post more examples in the comments."

[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/oppressor
[2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neutral
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition

@sjw very nice lewd spree, keep it up!

@realcaseyrollins As in "blog post" or actually create a blog?
If the former, Idc, if the later, definitely yes. And don't forget to enable RSS on it.

@comphys That is the LHC replacement right?
Well, since politicians are going to spend tax payer money on something anyways at least they are expending on science.

It could be going into much worse things, such as: mass surveillance, some useless war on the other side of the planet and business-welfare to keep unproductive jobs and companies alive.

(I'm not european)

@namark 🧠