19457 pts · November 17, 2015
No, that seems entirely plausible to me based on my layman's understanding of the subject. I think you've misunderstood. The comment I was replying to appeared to be written from the perspective of someone who very much WOULD say they didn't believe in that. But then the one I linked seemed to indicate the opposite. The result was confusion on my end, but a tentative conclusion that maybe the first comment was sarcastic. Am I mistaken? Maybe I've misunderstood and these are not contradictory.
This so closely resembles genuine bad arguments I've seen that my assumption at first was it was completely earnest until seeing /gallery/xL6Lux7/comment/2507607983. Poe's law is a harsh one.
I agree the analogy works better this way, but the image's text does specify "the absence of a belief in gods". I think specifying the absence of a religious belief system would have worked better, but I'm not sure if that's necessarily a widely accepted definition of atheism.
Frankly the conditions in most prisons are deplorable for no reason other than cruelty, and that, at an absolute minimum, needs to change. But not for this dickhead's sake in particular, just because it's the right thing to do in general.
It's not, but it's a decent enough joke.
Hearing people get the uncensored dialogue. Deaf? Too bad, you get the toddler version.
The working theory behind the so-called "invisible hand of the free market" has always been "If businesses do something bad, the ones that don't will attract more customers and win instead!" Businesses long ago figured out that it's more appealing to just not compete with each other and do whatever the bad thing in question is together so there are no alternatives.
In physical stores, it doesn't yet, and the tech is probably not quite there. No very precise way to target a single physical person and show only them a specific price on a shelf. Digitally though, usual recommendations are to compare to a browser in private/incognito mode, and/or using a VPN I think.
#24 I'm starting to think the list of plants not ascribed evil-repelling qualities might be shorter than the reverse.
That's kinda my suspicion. Or at least waiting for it to no longer be the cause célèbre. Wait for exhaustion, apathy, and short media memory to clear the way first. It'll likely serve Sony similarly well in their decision to stop selling physical discs, and it's served many other justifiably unpopular moves that happened anyway.
I think people get right up to the edge of realizing they're scared of getting in trouble for "calls for violence" and get vague about it at the last second.
Huh. Well, according to the follow-up when I was still able to see it, it's "not hypothetical" that these words will get your post shadowbanned, yet also "the platform doesn't care about specific words and neither do the advertisers," and the places they forgot to censor words had no ill effect. I'm not sure if Imgur servers have barfed again, or if it was just easier to block than to explain how these can all be true, but if anyone else can I'm all ears.
You know what the real funny part is? The word "genitalia" is uncensored in image 1, and "pussy" in image six. Apparently neither actually caused any problems. That aside: I get that if you have to quote someone who said an "objectionable" word that you might need to censor it depending on the venue in which you're reporting it. But when the quotes are fabricated, the problem of needing (or, in this case, thinking you need) embarrassing censorship becomes partially self-inflicted.
So the platform doesn't care about specific words, but it's necessary to censor those words anyway, but only sometimes, it seems like. And I know that can't be what you meant, so I'm presumably missing something.
I should probably add that the "message" in question in this case appears to be a completely made-up story, but that is probably irrelevant to the point to be fair.
The message is unrelated to the "naughty" words that the poster assumes might be blocked. The post is (hypothetically) at risk of not being shown to others because of these words, not because of its message. If the message itself WERE what the platform wanted to censor, avoiding directly using "bad" words wouldn't make a difference. All this does is prevent (hypothetical) unfavorable algorithm placement by avoiding using advertiser-unfriendly language - exactly what the platform holder wants.
Resisting censorship via preemptive capitulation to it beyond what the censors even asked for
"The"?
Oh hey, more breeding kink exhibitionism from its most consistent source. Nothing wrong with that, just awfully strange they need to shove it in everyone else's faces.
I've heard this ostensibly answered by "They tried but failed," with a gesture towards some "I saw a line that looked weird to me" chart, but exactly why they couldn't do the same thing as the time it was "rigged" successfully never received clarification.
I've had the occasion to ask someone a very similar question in person. Bet I don't even need to tell you the response.
#21 I've seen a variety of images with these bizarre lowercase e characters with the bar, and I still don't understand why. It doesn't seem like it's just a font. The little white bar varies in size, and presence, which seems to indicate it was placed there manually. But... why? I don't think it's for censorship. I know we've reached a point that some people literally think they can't write "butt" on the internet, but we haven't fallen so far into the nightmare to be censoring "he's" yet.
You can long for something you're incapable of obtaining. That's a very common cause of longing. I'm just spitballing here though. I can't think of an exact phrasing that'd work very gracefully.
Does look like there is some of this going on per https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/data-center-steal-millions-cargo. It does mention only two specific instances of theft, but they were big ones.
Some people have such an out-of-control breeding kink they can't even entertain the idea that not everyone else does. And like a lot of similar unquestioned assumptions, it makes the world seem confusing or even infuriating to them.
Maybe something about him longing to be impregnated would have worked better.
#26 - There's a reason for this. Contemporary WOTC is terrified of their own creature size rules, so they've stopped making any playable races that aren't Medium except for a handful of Small races. One approach is to retcon playable stats for bigger species into smaller ones, like creatures that are half horse being considerably smaller than actual horses, or even NPCs of the same species. Another is to just declare big species like Goliaths to be Medium for no specific reason at 8' tall.
Snopes has done a follow-up specifically on whether the marks in question are tire tracks from said motorcade: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reflecting-pool-tire-tracks/
No, that seems entirely plausible to me based on my layman's understanding of the subject. I think you've misunderstood. The comment I was replying to appeared to be written from the perspective of someone who very much WOULD say they didn't believe in that. But then the one I linked seemed to indicate the opposite. The result was confusion on my end, but a tentative conclusion that maybe the first comment was sarcastic. Am I mistaken? Maybe I've misunderstood and these are not contradictory.
This so closely resembles genuine bad arguments I've seen that my assumption at first was it was completely earnest until seeing /gallery/xL6Lux7/comment/2507607983. Poe's law is a harsh one.
I agree the analogy works better this way, but the image's text does specify "the absence of a belief in gods". I think specifying the absence of a religious belief system would have worked better, but I'm not sure if that's necessarily a widely accepted definition of atheism.
Frankly the conditions in most prisons are deplorable for no reason other than cruelty, and that, at an absolute minimum, needs to change. But not for this dickhead's sake in particular, just because it's the right thing to do in general.
It's not, but it's a decent enough joke.
Hearing people get the uncensored dialogue. Deaf? Too bad, you get the toddler version.
The working theory behind the so-called "invisible hand of the free market" has always been "If businesses do something bad, the ones that don't will attract more customers and win instead!" Businesses long ago figured out that it's more appealing to just not compete with each other and do whatever the bad thing in question is together so there are no alternatives.
In physical stores, it doesn't yet, and the tech is probably not quite there. No very precise way to target a single physical person and show only them a specific price on a shelf. Digitally though, usual recommendations are to compare to a browser in private/incognito mode, and/or using a VPN I think.
#24 I'm starting to think the list of plants not ascribed evil-repelling qualities might be shorter than the reverse.
That's kinda my suspicion. Or at least waiting for it to no longer be the cause célèbre. Wait for exhaustion, apathy, and short media memory to clear the way first. It'll likely serve Sony similarly well in their decision to stop selling physical discs, and it's served many other justifiably unpopular moves that happened anyway.
I think people get right up to the edge of realizing they're scared of getting in trouble for "calls for violence" and get vague about it at the last second.
Huh. Well, according to the follow-up when I was still able to see it, it's "not hypothetical" that these words will get your post shadowbanned, yet also "the platform doesn't care about specific words and neither do the advertisers," and the places they forgot to censor words had no ill effect. I'm not sure if Imgur servers have barfed again, or if it was just easier to block than to explain how these can all be true, but if anyone else can I'm all ears.
You know what the real funny part is? The word "genitalia" is uncensored in image 1, and "pussy" in image six. Apparently neither actually caused any problems. That aside: I get that if you have to quote someone who said an "objectionable" word that you might need to censor it depending on the venue in which you're reporting it. But when the quotes are fabricated, the problem of needing (or, in this case, thinking you need) embarrassing censorship becomes partially self-inflicted.
So the platform doesn't care about specific words, but it's necessary to censor those words anyway, but only sometimes, it seems like. And I know that can't be what you meant, so I'm presumably missing something.
I should probably add that the "message" in question in this case appears to be a completely made-up story, but that is probably irrelevant to the point to be fair.
The message is unrelated to the "naughty" words that the poster assumes might be blocked. The post is (hypothetically) at risk of not being shown to others because of these words, not because of its message. If the message itself WERE what the platform wanted to censor, avoiding directly using "bad" words wouldn't make a difference. All this does is prevent (hypothetical) unfavorable algorithm placement by avoiding using advertiser-unfriendly language - exactly what the platform holder wants.
Resisting censorship via preemptive capitulation to it beyond what the censors even asked for
"The"?
Oh hey, more breeding kink exhibitionism from its most consistent source. Nothing wrong with that, just awfully strange they need to shove it in everyone else's faces.
I've heard this ostensibly answered by "They tried but failed," with a gesture towards some "I saw a line that looked weird to me" chart, but exactly why they couldn't do the same thing as the time it was "rigged" successfully never received clarification.
I've had the occasion to ask someone a very similar question in person. Bet I don't even need to tell you the response.
#21 I've seen a variety of images with these bizarre lowercase e characters with the bar, and I still don't understand why. It doesn't seem like it's just a font. The little white bar varies in size, and presence, which seems to indicate it was placed there manually. But... why? I don't think it's for censorship. I know we've reached a point that some people literally think they can't write "butt" on the internet, but we haven't fallen so far into the nightmare to be censoring "he's" yet.
You can long for something you're incapable of obtaining. That's a very common cause of longing. I'm just spitballing here though. I can't think of an exact phrasing that'd work very gracefully.
Does look like there is some of this going on per https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/data-center-steal-millions-cargo. It does mention only two specific instances of theft, but they were big ones.
Some people have such an out-of-control breeding kink they can't even entertain the idea that not everyone else does. And like a lot of similar unquestioned assumptions, it makes the world seem confusing or even infuriating to them.
Maybe something about him longing to be impregnated would have worked better.
#26
- There's a reason for this. Contemporary WOTC is terrified of their own creature size rules, so they've stopped making any playable races that aren't Medium except for a handful of Small races. One approach is to retcon playable stats for bigger species into smaller ones, like creatures that are half horse being considerably smaller than actual horses, or even NPCs of the same species. Another is to just declare big species like Goliaths to be Medium for no specific reason at 8' tall.
Snopes has done a follow-up specifically on whether the marks in question are tire tracks from said motorcade: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reflecting-pool-tire-tracks/