Lots of (preferable) ways! Elections every four years are _the rarest_ of ways in which governments at all levels make important, long-term decisions; I'm surprised that was your first thought.
Who talked about voting?
I understand that you (implicitly) saying that [our claim that festivities should/could be redesigned is bad] is something that _you_ consider “good” and closer to the “truth” (otherwise you wouldn't be defending it), and thus by your own assessment it risks devolving into a dystopia?
/cc @ImperfectIdea
😆
Well, I was talking in general there (cold utility calculations, cost/benefit analyses, redesigning traditions, etc).
But wrt fesitivies you forgot the most important point there: picking the best individuals/groups to honour! 😃
That's me (or who I aspire to be) right there!
> _“I didn’t expect you to be interested. I’ll just be standing over here in the corner in case you decide you like truth and goodness.”_
Too specific as a generic tool (and I was looking for web-based ones), but thank you!
It's a wrapper around Graphviz, which I love :)
tripu
boosted
@tripu Asciiflow reminds me of good ol' TheDraw back then. I had a lot of fun with that software in the old BBS times.
Note to self about #online #diagrams and #charts:
1. [`excalidraw.com`](https://excalidraw.com/) for sleek hand-drawn diagrams (just a few shapes, but great UI)
1. [`app.diagrams.net`](https://app.diagrams.net/) for blocky, corporate-looking diagrams (plenty of clipart, bloated UI)
1. [`mermaid.live`](https://mermaid.live/) for auto generation of diagrams belonging to a handful of types (computing, engineering, business), similar to #Graphviz (very limited, but declarative and text-based)
1. [`asciiflow.com`](https://asciiflow.com/) for the lolz, basically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism :
> _“Many Islamist movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, have been willing to pursue their ends by peaceful political processes, rather than revolutionary means. Others, notably Qutb, called for violence, and his followers are generally considered Islamic extremists.”_
That's the approach I advocate.
Let's condemn explicitly violent groups of any sort, be it incels, Muslims, Christians, conservatives, environmentalists, anarchists, whatever — without treating each and every individual who self-identifies with the label as a terrorist.
Another way to see how that logic is dangerous:
[31% of British Muslims believe that apostates should be killed](https://web.archive.org/web/20131102045124/http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/living%20apart%20together%20-%20jan%2007.pdf). Yet in the UK they do not label “terrorists” all Muslims.
[In Egypt, that percentage more than doubles (64% favour killing apostates)](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/). And three quarters of Palestinians defend the stoning of women as punishment for adultery. That does not make Egyptians or Palestinians “terrorists” as a whole, of course.
Those figures above seem more alarming (and reliable) than any report I've seen about “incel” “communities” so far.
This is the exact link between those cases and every other “incel” in the world. In that article:
> _“[He] declared himself a so-called ‘incel’”_
An on the WP article:
> _“[People] have self-identified as involuntarily celibate, or whose statements align with incel ideologies”_
ie, we would declare terrorists thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people who never hurt anybody just because a handful of them self-identified as belonging to the same loosely-defined group.
After a load of stats and surveys from different sources, starting in the 70s and spanning half a century:
> _“Men are more committed than women to the pursuit of #truth as the_ raison d’être _of #science, while women are more committed to various moral goals, such as equity, inclusion, and the protection of vulnerable groups. […] #Men are relatively more interested in advancing what is empirically correct, and #women are relatively more interested in advancing what is morally desirable.”_
But those projects are extremely niche and haven't been tested with a significant no. of users for long enough yet, right?
Re China: it doesn't have to be either/or. Can't we imagine using IDs in social networks without the West devolving into “a centralized authoritarian dystopia”? We didn't have a centralized authoritarian dystopia before social networks with plenty of ID everywhere, and we don't have one now — it's not clear that introducing IDs online now would inevitably lead to a centralized authoritarian dystopia. I say at least let's be open to the idea.
That's my reservation, too.
Two thinkers I follow and respect, @jonhaidt and @profgalloway, are now advocating the need of some kind of ID for users of online social media. It's an idea I always found intuitively repellent, and I fear the negative consequences that would have — but their arguments in favour are making me doubt.
tripu
boosted
RT @SpacChad
This is how techno is made if you didn’t already know
From the UnHerd article:
> _“Is there any correlation between all this nasty posting and real-world behaviour? There’s no data to support this bold assertion. In fact, a recent study into the incel community suggests otherwise. And so does the report itself: the main section includes a subheader titled ‘Links to Offline Violence’ that includes just one case of a man arrested for possession of an assault rifle and an ‘attempt to commit a hate crime.’”_
I can't seem to find the report to check that myself. But if it's so, that's extremely flimsy evidence of online discussions leading to IRL violence.
You say:
> _“There are links between the violence and the threats. There has been several claimed attacks from [COMMUNITY]. Starting with the [YEAR] [INCIDENT], but sadly not ending there.”_
If we were to insert some other _community_ there instead of “incels”, and some other outrageous attack attributed to a member of that community, and your statement still held true, **would you be willing to declare all members of that other _community_ “terrorists”, too?** If not, what's the difference, what are the other criteria? (Honest question.)
> _“The problem is them public and shamelessly threatening with violence.”_
To put it another way: my issue is with that “them” above. Who is “them”? All self-declared involuntary celibates? Just those in the US? Only users of that forum? Female ones, too? What about the ones who are explicitly against violence?
How many are there in each of those categories above?
We shouldn't paint with too broad a brush and label thousands or millions of people as “terrorists” like that. It's a very serious accusation.
Yes, I read the article. I offer you [this one](https://unherd.com/thepost/the-incel-movement-isnt-getting-more-extreme/) in return.
I'm all about detecting mental health issues to treat them early, and preventing violence IRL. I just object to “declaring #incels terrorists”.
My logic against that is: that study is about one specific online community only, there appear to be zero concrete links between discussions on that site and actual violence, the study seems week in some regards (eg, doesn't seem to distinguish between hyperbole, humour and irony, and actual beliefs or intentions), and — most importantly — we have no idea what percentage of “incels” are represented on that site.
That is why I was comparing to other demographics. We don't declare all self-declared “islamists” “terrorists” just because there are large online communities of islamists discussing, or even advocating, violence.
