They had a fun time while it lasted, however such inorganic promotion of hypersexuality had a cost and they’ll pay soon.
Tolerating & not suppressing it is tantamount to promotion?
Or what exactly are you talking about?
“Hypersexual” is a term I have heard used by anti-LGBTQ bigots as a pejorative, especially but not exclusively by the religious right. They think that a minority calling out to each other in solidarity or getting special protections equals a hyperfixation upon having sex.
The person above is welcome to tell me I have them all wrong, but based on their other comment in this post, they appear to think queer people on the internet (or maybe just the internet in general) are sex-crazed maniacs.
removed by mod
CW: transphobia
trans are the most sus even within the LGBT. Its a broad category of mostly nonsense identities or simply just people unable to cope with how they are born and lamenting over it and passing on that stupidity to children. There are trans who act and blend like any other human being but most are just plain psychological disaster. The unnatural spike in identity disorder proves it.
https://lemmy.world/comment/3157331
I think you’re right.
deleted by creator
It’s an absolutely sinister plot by the left wing to make people less right /s
removed by mod
removed by mod
removed by mod
removed by mod
LMAO, employees are about to find out why a union would be a good idea. Gotta speedrun growing class consciousness.
Tech bros are too smart for that. They are true libertarians. Totally can get a better deal on their own. /S
Imagine this being your red line. Your totally prepared to work at Facebook, because there’s absolutely nothing dodgy about that, but suddenly his transphobia is a problem.
He answered the Trump signal, walked in and plop down one mil on the man’s desk. Now he’s following the Russian handbook for censorship.
There is a vast chasm between not doing a good enough job reining in your sensors and publicly openly declaring hate speech acceptable
Nah Meta is widely regarded as one of the best employers in the world. I’d take 300k/usd year and all of the benefits too. Let’s stop pretending that traditional companies are somehow better so you either don’t work for any corporation or actually work for one that provides incredibly benefits to you so you have the luxury to give back and steer the ship towards good a little bit.
Personally, I wouldn’t but this is the reasoning most employees have when joining Meta.
Nah Meta is widely regarded as one of the best employers in the world
lolwut
They pay a lot, but everyone knows they’re overworked like hell. Meta is a shit-tier employer, but if you’re a young masochist then they’re worth a few years to pad your accounts.
Same with Apple. They pay a lot and it looks fantastic on your resume. Even though in reality the likelihood is that the job you did was basically the same as it would be in any other company, but Apple prestige is a thing.
Please note - 99% of the time on the internet, when someone says “in the wuuurld” they mean “In this one capitalist hellhole country” so in this case it may be correct
Expanding on to your comment:
99% of the time on the internet, when someone says “in the wuuurld” they mean
“In my very limited experience, in my tiny portion of the world, that I may have never left.”
Unless a person has vast experience and has had deep conversations with thousands of people, we as humans just don’t have the ability to appreciate just how radically different life experiences are for people we share the same block with.
Nice try, Zuckerberg…
No I understand that they pay very well what I’m saying is it just seemed odd that you would go to work for such a company without knowing that you were essentially walking with the devil.
If you make peace with that then absolutely fine, but it then seems a bit odd to turn around and be suddenly offended by something as if they hadn’t already been doing stuff like that all along.
OK Meta HR…
But what is your mobility as one of its workers? What other social networks can they begin working for realistically in such a small market? Maybe that’s the way to fight against Zuckerberg’s and Musk’s attempts to turn their networks into propaganda tools for the highest bidder, to encourage disgruntled workers to start their own social networks and then go support them as well. I would seriously consider paying for an adequately moderated ActivityPub alternate that truly respected its users, was truly transparent, focuses on high quality content, and prevented brigade agenda pushing.
I don’t know if they use activityPub but open source Facebook equivalence do exist.
I know because me and my friend thought we were onto a great idea with “social networks as a protocol” but it turns out that it already existed. For some reason it just doesn’t seem to have taken off in the same way that Mastodon has, not that Mastodon itself is that successful (look at its numbers compared to Blue Sky).
It’s ok to let their platform spread misinformation and hatred that affects millions, but it’s not OK when that comes back and bites them in the ass.
I know their longest tenured employee. Ran into them after 20 yrs… Different human. Nothing behind her eyes.
Others that have been there from 5 to 15 yrs…
Boiled frogs at different stages. (Yes, I know the science is debunked for literal frogs.)
What I don’t know, living in SV, is a single human that’s started a new job with them in the last… 5? 10? yrs… at this point it’s all younger people who only know a world with Meta. And this is all normal to them.
It is kind of a red line. First theyre going after trans people. Why do you think you hear about it every day now? It gets the hate machine going for people other than our rulers
First theyre going after trans people.
That first appears to be skipping over a whole lot of people who’ve been getting fucked for a long time.
If youre not rich youre getting fucked but not actively being demonized by the state(not yet). Well maybe immigrants are up there with them
It’s not just transphobia in these changes. You are also allowed to say that women should be/are property.
Facebook has a history of facilitating genocide (Indonesia, Myanmar). It’s clear that if it starts in the US, Facebook will be happy to help.
So as long as the genocide is far away, is completely acceptable for its employees to work there?
Nah, it was fucked up then too.
It makes sense that US politics would be the straw that would break the camels back for most Facebook employments - I don’t think your average tech worker is too familiar with the violence organized on Facebook by Hindu nationalists, the crimes against the Rohingya etc… a lot of that was with foreign language content moderation, so I can see people reasonably not knowing.
It is genuinely terrifying though. I’m already living in a fascist state and have gone through hell; I don’t know if I’ll get to survive another term of Trump.
Well, Frances Haugen left a while ago. Some people did go.
And, well, the best time to leave Facebook was to never join. The second best time is now.
For many, I imagine it’s just the straw that broke the camel’s back
Its amazing how quickly these assholes have dropped any sort of facade they were keeping up towards their public image. At best they are doing whatever they think will get them the most money, more realistically they actually support this regressive bullshit. As a non-American I am so pissed at what a good portion of that country has voted for and those that stayed home instead of preventing this.
Yeah, it is absolutely crazy how much the tide has shifted with trump’s reelection. These so-called “woke” companies (it was always performative, but they performed for the more just side) have all turned 180 and dropped to their knees to kiss the ring.
And this is because of the very real feeling that trump will abuse his power and unconstitutionally stay in office. The guardrails seem to have come down, and these fuckers are rushing to get on the fascist’s good side.
That should alarm everyone, so I’ll say it again: these companies are positioning themselves on the side of fascism because they don’t think we can stop them anymore. They are making business decisions that bolster fascists because there’s a fuckin dollar in it.
With the power of these fucking megacorps behind the fascist movement, it’s like sticking a rocket engine on its ass.
The guardrails seem to have come down
They don’t seem to, they definitely have. Remember that Supreme Court ruling that said the president can break the law?
Something something 1930’s Germany.
That’s not at all amazing. What’s amazing is that a large number of people thought it was a great idea to hand over the power to decide what’s true or not to private companies. When they rolled out this “content moderation” used mostly against Trump the political left was beside itself with joy. I remember the taunts of “haha it’s a private company, they can publish whatever they want.” So incredibly stupid and short sighted.
I mean, I feel thats still true. And because it’s true, we need to get the f off of it, as a society.
The “it’s a private company lolz” thing was itself a reaction to when Republicans were refusing to make gay wedding cakes, and the loss of the Fairness Doctrine long before that.
I think “thought it was a great idea to hand over the power […] to private companies” is a misrepresentation. Some moderation was better than no moderation, but obviously "the political left"would have preferred regulation rather than self regulation.
What’s the point you’re making? That nothing should have been done?
That this was worse than nothing. Time after time we fall for the old “we’ll self-regulate trust us” and all it did was delay actual action being taken while a Democrat was in charge, and now we’re stuck for at least 4 more years. It was already godawful 4 years ago, 4 years from now the state of public discourse may be beyond repair.
I see your point now and agree
Supposing your team had won, these people would go back to only paying lip service. Better, no doubt, but not a solution. How long did fascists and racists and misogynists lay dormant in US culture before seizing control now?
You need cleansing and systemic change. People need to internalize “no one is free until everyone is free.” Fascists and ethno-nationalists need to be afraid and culturally eliminated over generations.
Fascism is enabled by liberalism, and its capitalist ideology, and it’s promoted by capitalists when capital is threatened. Capitalism is the underlying force here, and capitalists are behaving in exactly the same way they’ve done at similar points in history and as described and predicted by leftists.
Yes Democrats losing the vote sucks and we’re all paying for it, globally, but their win would have been a delay at best. That doesn’t mean winning votes isn’t important, but it means that it can’t be your one and only political action once every 4 years. It’s time to get serious.
The oligarchs have paid their tithe to king Trump and feel like they are immune to consequences. So far they have been correct.
LOL welcome to corporate America. The only reason they paid lip service to causes like you mention is because it was temporarily a pathway to more profit. Now that Trump is in office (or nearly so, anyway) they have read the room and realized these beliefs are actually a liability now. So, surprise! They dropped em like a rock in the pursuit of more profits. Never never never trust a corporation to do the right thing. They sometimes accidentally do it in the pursuit of profits, but tying your hopes and dreams to a large corporation is a foolish plan. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU THEY CARE ABOUT THE MONEY IN YOUR WALLET.
If you have a problem with it, organize a Facebook union. The only way small voices matter to CEOs are when they speak collectively.
if they weren’t already organizing, I bet they are now. CWA has been receiving so many high quality leads for the last 2 years that they literally do not have enough dues-paying members to fund all of those campaigns. They’re one of the largest unions in the US already.
Can non members support CWA financially?
I was curious since I’d never considered that, I became a member the old fashioned way. It doesn’t look like you can donate directly, but CWA has a merch store full of reasonably priced, union-made clothing that you can buy to support them!
feel free to be heroes and leak meta’s source code before leaving.
That’s a bit like emptying the sewer into the street
Five people interviewed….
“It’s total chaos!!!”
I despise Facebook as much as the next person, but sensationalism hurts more than it helps.
“Internal conversations and five people interviewed.”
Let’s be honest. For current employees, it’s probably 10-100 times that. If my company did something controversial and then the press asked me for a reaction, I’d say “no comment” like it’s my catch phrase. Unless you already have a job lined up (that can’t be undone by “badmouthing your employer”), no one’s being open and truthful.
Getting five employee accounts on record is impressive.
There is not a zero-risk of retaliation.
i think I’ve finally reached peak zuckerberg, i don’t want to read one more thing about facebook or meta or whatever
Same. Luckily you can add his name to the block list.
I think community notes is a better form of moderation. And focusing on stopping the more extreme bad shit instead of thought crimes seems like a good thing too.
For all the crap on X, the Community Notes I’ve seen have been actually kinda good. Not that I’ve seen a lot, because algorithmically sorted public microblogging is still discursive cancer with ideological hepatitis that I mostly try to avoid.
who is talking about thought crime? spreading fake news can be dangerous in a way that results in actual deaths.
“In modern usage, the term “thought crime” is often used metaphorically to describe situations where individuals are penalised or ostracised for holding unapproved or unpopular opinions, or for expressing dissenting views.” - dr gpt
Seems to fit pretry perfectly
In the context of trans people, anti trans rhetoric goes away beyond “unapproved” or “unpopular” though. It’s straight up non-factual pseudoscience at best. A lot of it is straight up lies and libel/slander. It does real, lasting harm. That’s not “thought crime” as you describe.
That exactly fits my definition. My definition says nothing about outcomes or if its true or not my definition is simply about expressing an opinion and you disliking it is proving me right.
Indeed, the whole point of my comment is that your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not. Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.
I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.
your definition is bad because it doesn’t take into account if something is true or not.
My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.
Edit: Or, and this is much MUCH more important, whether the statements in question cause real harm to other people.
Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less. And u taking offence is your choice and yoyr problem.
I’m not accusing you of thought crime, I’m accusing you of stupidity and you disliking it is proving me right.
I wasnt aware that anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid, thanks for enlightening me. Seems kinda self centred to me but i would be stupid to disagree with on that point.
My interpretation of 1984 was that a thought crime had no regard for the truth.
Only because The Party has no regard for the truth. If, in 1984, The Party were concerned with truth at all then thought crime would also be concerned with the truth. This is because the real definition of thought crime in the context of that story is any thought that isn’t approved by The Party.
But you’ve brought the phrase “thought crime” out if that context and into the real world. Here, truth matters.
Words that are not calling for actionable violence can offend nothibg more nothibg less
Completely untrue, and very disturbing that you’d think otherwise.
anyone who disliked your ideas was stupid
That’s not why you’re stupid, it has nothing to do with me.
thats different from fake news, still
Please define “fake news” and dont say news that isnt true because then u have to decide who chooses what is objective reality.
When a judge decides to convict someone of murder, we all know they might be wrong. The judge is not entitled to decide what objective reality is, he just decides how the judiciary system sees and treats the situation, as someone has to do it.
The same thing should be applied to fake news, which is sharing (dis)information with the false appearance of some verified news piece to influence people into making certain decisions.
Of course, there’s a big potential for censorship in how we treat fake news. So this treatment should follow clear objective criteria and be absolutely transparent.
I see ur point but just kinda sounds like censorship with extra steps. For example we have seen the american courts are racist, sexist, classist, unfair cesspools, its nessasary evil to maibtain civil order but i dont want those same standards applied to speach.
Also from a philosophical point of view free speach and the marketplace of ideas is the fundamental building block upon which democraticy itself is build.
Etc etc insert George Orwell quote here
transparency is precisely what can make regulations not be censorship, or I should hope so.
Better late than never.
“Total Chaos” feels a bit overblown…
Yeah, the only outcome I can see from this is everyone is given a choice to stay and shut up or leave if they disagree with the new direction. Most will chose, the people who stay behind to cause trouble will be removed shortly after and then business will return to normal.
It’s probably accurate. Imagine cubicles and desks smoldering in a filthy, smokey heap, copy machines smashed through the windows, sparking electrical conduit dangling from the ceiling. It’s likely madness.
Dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!
I wonder if even one chair has been overturned.
Question, and this may not be the perfect place for this, but is it the phrasing that LGBTQ is a mental “illness” that’s the problem here, or that it’s a mental attribute at all?
I’m an LGBT supporter, so I’m not coming at this from a place of malice, I suppose it’s curiosity and ignorance. Don’t we basically understand that the way we function as humans is all a part of our brain chemistry, and that certain deviations from the norm cause things like ADD, homosexuality, musical creativity, etc etc?
The word illness seems way too strong, as we as a society have decided we don’t have anything against that personal trait/lifestyle/whatever, but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?
Again I don’t want to get caught up in feelings here, because I think people will hear that and take offence to it since no one wants to be “abnormal” but that is the concensus is it not?
Your argument has been used countless times in history for a number of “abnormalities” that turn out to just be differences without distinction.
“Listen, I’m a supporter of red-heads, but don’t we basically understand that it’s a genetic abnormality? Maybe ‘illness’ is a bit harsh, but they’re just not common enough in society to be considered normal.”
It’s a genetic superiority I’ll have you know, +30 resistance to anaesthetic.
It’s not an argument, I’m asking in good faith if my current viewpoint is correct. I’m reading your reworking of my words and I don’t actually see a problem with it. Abormality just means a difference with a much lower chance than normal. I think this actually proves what I’m trying to say because I don’t think anyone legitimately believes there’s anything wrong with people who have read hair.
Again it seems to be the word that’s chosen that causes a bad reaction. If I say being a redhead is a genetic deficiency then I’m implying it’s a bad or unwanted trait (which it is not) similar to the word “illness”. However if I say it’s a genetic abnormality, I don’t think that has any negative connotations because it is a difference, as you say, but one not seen as often as any other differences.
Again, I can’t prove to you that I’m approaching this in good faith, the downvotes seem to say most people above I’m not, but I am just trying to understand if it’s the words we’re using that people take offense to, or the actual meaning behind them is wrong.
The difference is being labeled “abnormal” by a person you know vs. by society. As a society, we used to beat children who used their left hand to write until they started acting “normal”.
The thought itself that left-handedness and right-handedness are different is not harmful. However, when you start labeling one as ‘normal’ and the other as a ‘generic abnormality’, you start shifting people’s perspectives and suddenly we get a situation where we call left-handed people “Sinister”. (The word literally means left-handed. We added the evil connotations afterwards because of the prejudice against left-handed people. We also did the same in reverse for “dexterity”.)
You might not see the harm immediately in the small scale, but it’s absolutely intended to be a step towards dehumanizing queer people. As others have said as well, homosexuality is incredibly common in nature. Most giraffe sex is gay sex. It’s just not taught in school because… say it with me… “It’s abnormal.”
It’s really not though. It’s just different, and different doesn’t mean bad.
I think we’re on the same page then, we just have different taste when it comes to using certain words. I can certainly appreciate your slippery slope point where anbnormalities can be twisted by society into being negative. That’s a very real thing and you have some good examples. I suppose I’m just disappointed that we as a society are choosing to step around words and not confront the elephant in the room that abnormal things happen all the time and they aren’t bad.
I wish we lived in a society where people aren’t always looking to paint people in a bad light, where we could speak factually and not take offense to everything. At the end of the day the more I try to explain myself in these comments it appears to be the definition of normal that I’m getting hung up on. When I think “normal” I’m thinking statistically average, this is a fairly probably outcome. Others are thinking of “normal” as in socially accepted, not a big deal.
I think homosexuality in humans is abnormal (statistically) and normal (socially). I’d never heard that most giraffe sex was gay though, so that’s interesting. Time to get lost in Wikipedia.
Here come the downvotes, which most seem to use based on whether they agree with something or not, rather than for signalling the quality of a comment. It fosters echo chambering rather than healthy discussion. I for one think that this is an excellent question and discussion.
Question, and this may not be the perfect place for this, but is it the phrasing that LGBTQ is a mental “illness” that’s the problem here, or that it’s a mental attribute at all?
There are many possible reasons why people might be upset at this change.
For example, loosening the moderation and restrictions like this it empowers people who are coming at this specifically with malice in mind to act with impunity.
I’m an LGBT supporter, so I’m not coming at this from a place of malice, I suppose it’s curiosity and ignorance. Don’t we basically understand that the way we function as humans is all a part of our brain chemistry, and that certain deviations from the norm cause things like ADD, homosexuality, musical creativity, etc etc?
That’s a complicated question, with a lot of what i would consider reductive phrasing.
“Deviations from the norm” would imply that there is a specific baseline “norm” to point at, when it’s much more of a vague idea of what is average, which changes over time and with increased understanding/study.
Grouping ADD, homosexuality and musical creativity together is also a bit of a stretch IMO.
ADD can be classified as a divergence from the very rough average baseline of brain function, but even then it encompasses a wide range of differences and these differences vary from person to person.
This is evidenced by how they diagnose these conditions ( ADD, ASD, Anxiety disorder etc), which is through questionnaires and assessments by professionals.
It’s not a
“You tick the 10 ADD boxes so you get the label” kind of thing,
it’s more
“You exhibit enough of these wide range symptoms with a large enough difference from the vague baseline that we would put you roughly in to this category”
Opinions on homosexuality being nature vs nurture vs “some other thing” is a whole other giant kettle of fish.
And musical “talent” can have many sources, depending on your definition.
The word illness seems way too strong, as we as a society have decided we don’t have anything against that personal trait/lifestyle/whatever
It’s commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.
Look up what they used to call “Hysteria” and what that enabled them to justify as “medical procedures”.
I’m sure there are people who legitimately think it’s some sort of illness but i’d put my money on the majority just being arseholes using it as an excuse.
but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?
Depends on if you consider homosexual behaviour as something unnatural.
My personal opinion is that anything we do is “natural” as we are a part of nature, not outside of it.
Putting that argument aside however, there are instances of homosexual behaviour in animals other than humans.
It also heavily depends on your definition of “abnormal”, for instance, would you consider left-handedness a mental abnormality ?
Again I don’t want to get caught up in feelings here, because I think people will hear that and take offence to it since no one wants to be “abnormal”
They might take offence because words have contextual meaning associated with them.
The strict definition of the word abnormal isn’t particularly useful here , it’s only when it’s given context that it makes sense.
My view is that the word “abnormal” when used in the context of homosexuality has been continually used as a weapon, a way to normalise and justify bigotry.
If you establish up front what it is exactly you mean (for me this would need to include what you mean by “normal”), then you might get more positive responses.
but that is the concensus is it not?
As far as i understand it, no, it is not.
If a requirement to mental abnormality is that its unnatural, wouldnt that also exclude most mental illnesses?
I don’t think understand what you are asking, would you mind adding a bit more detail please ?
but as far as natural occurrences goes homosexuality must be considered a mental abnormality, no?
Depends on if you consider homosexual behaviour as something unnatural.
If the answer to the question “is homosexuality a mental abnormality” depends on if you consider homosexuality natural, that would mean that being unnatural is a condition of a mental abnormality, which, since people are born with mental illnesses and not resulted from human activity, would also exclude mental illnesses
Am i misunderstanding something?
Ah i think i see.
That quote is not from my post, i think you meant to reply to the OP.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out comment. I’ll try to reply to it but honestly the amount of downvotes I’m getting for trying to understand something is a bit discouraging so I don’t think I’ll be keeping the conversation going much longer.
“Deviations from the norm” would imply that there is a specific baseline “norm” to point at, when it’s much more of a vague idea of what is average, which changes over time and with increased understanding/study.
I’m making a pretty general statement so I don’t have numbers to back anything up, but I would be very surprised if we didn’t have basic statistics on how many people identify as gay, or are diagnosed with ADD, etc. So I think we do understand norms, but you’re right this always changes with increased research and study.
Grouping ADD, homosexuality and musical creativity together is also a bit of a stretch IMO.
I did this on purpose. I’m not saying any of these are similar at all, just that they’re attributes that might make us unique and as far as I’m aware (since I’m not religious) these are functions of brain chemestry. Somone who has a very creative mind can be encouraged through their upbringing and surroundings to use it for music, arts, etc but I do think think there is something physical in the brain there. I’m not a neuroscientist so I don’t know how much is attributed to genetics, hormones, etc.
(Illness) It’s commonly used to establish a baseline platform for justifying and normalising bigotry and hatred towards something.
I agree completely, which is why I say it’s not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies it’s something that needs to be corrected. I do see it as something that deviates from the norm, but in a way as harmless and inconsequential as left-handedness.
The strict definition of the word abnormal isn’t particularly useful here , it’s only when it’s given context that it makes sense.My view is that the word “abnormal” when used in the context of homosexuality has been continually used as a weapon, a way to normalise and justify bigotry.If you establish up front what it is exactly you mean (for me this would need to include what you mean by “normal”), then you might get more positive responses.
This is the conclusion I came to in a seperate comment here. That I am coming at the word abnormal from the statisctical point of view, as in it deviates from a known norm. A lower percentage of it happening compared to other outcomes. Other people are using the word abnormal as a way of shunning “the other”, which is unfortunate.
I thought I had done a good enough job of establishing upfront what I meant when I said that I was pro LGBT and was coming at this from a point of trying to understand, but I the backlash clearly shows that was not enough. I find it frustrating having to tiptoe around topics like this and always try to explain myself because people are so quick to look for the bad, but I suppose that is the current world we live in. It’s a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I can’t exect strangers on the internet to know me or what I believe in.
“but that is the concensus is it not?” As far as i understand it, no, it is not.
I’ve done a lot of explaining myself, but I’m still not conviced my original assumption is incorrect. I still think that homosexuality has a biological/mental aspect because gay people say that they were born that way, it’s not a choice, it’s who they are. I didn’t choose to be straight so that makes perfect sense to me. I also know that the people who feel that way are in a minority, therefore something is happening mentally, biologically, I don’t know, to a small subset of people making them an abnormality.
What I HAVE learned is I need to be more cautious of using the word abnormal which goes full circle to my question on if this is an issue of language. Most people really don’t like words that black and white say they’re different, because while it may be true, it can be used by people who do not feel like deviations from the norm are acceptable, and they will attack them for being the “other”. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say they’re on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.
Anyway, that’s enough rambling from me. Thanks for the reply.
1/2
Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out comment. I’ll try to reply to it but honestly the amount of downvotes I’m getting for trying to understand something is a bit discouraging so I don’t think I’ll be keeping the conversation going much longer.
No problem, i recognise the style of question because it’s how i would approach it.
As you correctly noted a few times, this is an emotionally charged topic so a higher than normal amount of people will interpret the question through the lens of their emotions
Even with the best intentions and most detailed prefaces you should still manage your expectations on the types and tone of replies you will get to such a question.
I think of it this way :
- if if think they are misunderstanding the question i am posing then they are not actually attacking me or my position, they are attacking what they think is me or my position.
- Then it’s just a case of determining if I’m willing to put forth the effort required to try and bridge that gap, which varies.
- If i think they are approaching in bad faith, that saves me some effort because i can just ignore/block them.
- If i think there is a genuine engagement, that’s good, even if they disagree I’m getting the discussion i was looking for.
In more concise wording, people are going to people, don’t let them foist their issues on to you, engage when you want, disengage when you don’t.
At least that’s what works for me.
I’m making a pretty general statement so I don’t have numbers to back anything up, but I would be very surprised if we didn’t have basic statistics on how many people identify as gay, or are diagnosed with ADD, etc. So I think we do understand norms, but you’re right this always changes with increased research and study.
I do see what you mean, what i was saying is that the understanding of “norm” isn’t very clearly defined in these sorts of cases.
Eye colour is relatively easy (within defined colour brackets) you can look at the single item of data and categorise so it’s easy to partition the population based on something like that.
With things like mental health diagnoses we can’t even reliably agree upon what brackets to apply so it’s significantly more difficult to apply the idea of a norm.
in turn that makes the idea of abnormal equally difficult to define.
I did this on purpose. I’m not saying any of these are similar at all, just that they’re attributes that might make us unique and as far as I’m aware (since I’m not religious) these are functions of brain chemestry. Somone who has a very creative mind can be encouraged through their upbringing and surroundings to use it for music, arts, etc but I do think think there is something physical in the brain there. I’m not a neuroscientist so I don’t know how much is attributed to genetics, hormones, etc.
I agree with them all being functions of brain chemistry.
Though i don’t rule out something we’d consider supernatural or spiritual because honestly i don’t really know much of anything to be definitively ruling out something like that.
I don’t subscribe to them in my daily life, but who knows.
The answer to most of this is “it’s complicated” and we’re basically using best guesses at this point, these guesses are based on scientific principles, but all that science really is is a semi-concrete method of defining and refining what our best guesses currently are.
What i was trying to convey is that while all of these things could be considered “attributes”, in reality it’s much more nuanced than it seems, musical talent has many forms, as does ADD and sexual orientation/preference.
Honestly i’d consider most brain stuff to just be unique expressions of an individual, rather than a set of labels, but that isn’t very helpful in most circumstances.
- if if think they are misunderstanding the question i am posing then they are not actually attacking me or my position, they are attacking what they think is me or my position.
2/2
I agree completely, which is why I say it’s not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies it’s something that needs to be corrected. I do see it as something that deviates from the norm, but in a way as harmless and inconsequential as left-handedness.
And i don’t disagree (aside from the discussion on “norm” as stated above).
I thought I had done a good enough job of establishing upfront what I meant when I said that I was pro LGBT and was coming at this from a point of trying to understand, but I the backlash clearly shows that was not enough.
That’s not necessarily true, people are going to disagree and misunderstand especially on a subject such as this, all you can do is engage in good faith and work with the results of that.
If you want to refine your explanations, that’s fine also, but you aren’t going to get 100% success rates, especially on the internet.
I find it frustrating having to tiptoe around topics like this and always try to explain myself because people are so quick to look for the bad, but I suppose that is the current world we live in.
All we can do is our best, if that’s not enough for some people, so be it.
This kind of communication is a skill, it’ll get more refined over time.
It’s a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I can’t exect strangers on the internet to know me or what I believe in.
True, so manage your expectations accordingly.
If you go in to it with an understanding of the potential outcomes you won’t be blindsided.
I’ve done a lot of explaining myself, but I’m still not conviced my original assumption is incorrect. I still think that homosexuality has a biological/mental aspect because gay people say that they were born that way, it’s not a choice, it’s who they are. I didn’t choose to be straight so that makes perfect sense to me. I also know that the people who feel that way are in a minority, therefore something is happening mentally, biologically, I don’t know, to a small subset of people making them an abnormality.
The conversation about a potential biological/genetic component to homosexuality is incredibly charged for various reasons but mainly because of the consequences of either outcome.
If it turns out there is a genetic component then think of all the things the fundamentalist nutjobs would want to do with that information.
And given that fundamentalist nutjobs aren’t know for their clear headed and rational thinking they wouldn’t understand (or would wilfully ignore) that you probably can’t just point to a “gay gene” as a means of identification so not only would they being doing stupid shit, they’d be doing stupid shit that doesn’t make any sense.
What I HAVE learned is I need to be more cautious of using the word abnormal which goes full circle to my question on if this is an issue of language. Most people really don’t like words that black and white say they’re different, because while it may be true, it can be used by people who do not feel like deviations from the norm are acceptable, and they will attack them for being the “other”. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say they’re on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.
I think it’s more complicated than just language, though language is a major component on the internet.
There are sometimes ways to present the same information in a similar way that makes use of linguistic and societal context to convey the meaning of what you were saying while downplaying some of the the negative aspects of how it could be received.
I suspect an issue you might be having is that at a glance they’d probably both look the same to you, so with a choice between four words and two sentences the more concise seems like the better option.
Though i might be projecting.
I don’t actually think that’s the issue here however, i agree it’s just a charged subject and people are people.
I feel bad writing such a short reply considering all the work you put into yours, but thank you for your understanding and the conversation. You’re very well spoken :)
I’m not going to downvote you and assume this is a genuine question. You appear to be aware that calling someone “abnormal” would be considered insulting. If you support the idea that someone having different sexual preferences is their own business, why would you want to use these labels? If one person likes math and the other likes literature, would you call one or the other abnormal? We all deviate from the norm because there is no norm.
Why would abnormal be an insult?
I would consider myself abnormal, it isnt a negative or positive thing
Yes, this is exactly my point. For example, I have ADHD which has some downsides, but a lot of upsides that make me who I am. I’m also partially red-green colorblind. Both of these are abnormalities, and I don’t take that as a personal affront.
Now, apart from being the butt of a couple jokes, being colorblind has not been a major hardship for me, so from an emotional level it’s not the same as growing up ostracized for being gay. Perhaps that’s why I don’t perceive my abnormality to be something I would take offence to.
That’s really what I’m trying to get down to. Are we trying to say being LGBT is “normal” as in, every child being born has a very high, or just as average a chance of being born LGBT as heterosexual? Because I don’t think any facts support that. Or are we saying an LGBT child would be an abnormality that we as a society simply don’t care about because we don’t attribute large importance to sexual orientation.
This is where I feel that saying homosexuality is a mental abnormality is not actually incorrect, but our connotations of the world abnormal are still such that people attribute negativity towards it.
Other animals exhibit homosexuality, we’re the only species to exhibit homophobia. That should tell you all you need to know about which behavior is abnormal.
Right, but those other animals do not exhibit homosexuality in high numbers. It’s still a small subset as far as I know, making it an abnormality that those animals simply don’t care about.
This isn’t about homophobia, I’ve already stated that I’m pro LGBT, it’s about the meaning of words and understanding if a lot of the backlash is due to the perception of the words or the meaning of the words. I also agree that illness is a negative word that implies a correction is needed and I do not support it.
Consistently observed behavior in a population subset is not an abnormality.
Fair. It comes down to which definition of abnormal you jump to. Merriam Webster gives two possible definitons:
- deviating from the normal or average
- often : unusual in an unwelcome or problematic way
I always though of it as #1, but this whole thread has taught me that most others see it as #2, so it’s not the best word for me to use in this case.
Variant is probably a better choice than abnormality, if you’re asking genuinely, that is.
Seriously, this is how the media is spinning this? “Facebook now allows people to post that LGBT people are mentally ill”?
The default behavior of any social media platform is to allow people to say anything they want. That’s what social media is for, to allow people to talk to each other. The things it doesn’t allow are, and ought to be, exceptions. Facebook has now decided that one of these exceptions will be slightly loosened. I somehow fail to see the big deal in this.
The paradox of tolerance is you have to be intolerant to intolerance
The default behavior of any social media platform is to allow people to say anything they want.
False, moderation has existed since literally the beginning.
That doesn’t contradict what I’m saying (“default behavior”), and also moderation is different from censorship.
ok buddy
You are an idiot.(*)
(*)See anything wrong with that statement? Think an order of magnitude worse and directed at minorities who already are targeted with hate, and you have the reason why such policies must exist.
I wasn’t actually expressing a substantive opinion on whether this policy change of Meta’s is a good thing or bad thing. The rules there are as arbitrary as anywhere else on the Internet; this slight shift does not make much of a difference.
But moderation is different from censorship: if you (or I or anyone else) do not want to read people writing about LGBT people being mentally ill, or calling me an idiot (and I certainly don’t, most of the time), or literally making any statement at all in the world, then none of us should have to. That doesn’t mean people who want to say these things to each other (necessarily) need to be prevented from saying them to each other; there are arguments for that too, but it’s a different issue.
Let me shorten your wording to make my next question clear:
if you do not want to read X, then none of us should have to
How does that make sense? I actually don’t get what you are trying to say. Are you advocating censorship as in “rules should be global”?
The point of moderation is: If companies make profit providing a social platform, they should be the ones leveraging the effort to keep illegal contents off their platform. Also, it provides a legal path for making them responsible for their contents (if they fail to moderate).
Censorship - leaving all questionable aspects aside - puts the efforts entirely on the censoring party (typically a state entity). And while I am definitely not arguing in favor of censorship, I absolutely object to investing a single tax Euro into censoring (or moderating) privately owned for-profit social media.
Now to your first point:
[…] whether this policy change of Meta’s is a good thing or bad thing. The rules there are as arbitrary as anywhere else on the Internet; this slight shift does not make much of a difference.
Please call the stupid incel pieces of shit what they are - Facebook assholes. because fuck them, and they are not entitled to telling us how to call those useless wastes of oxygen. Meta is a word, it has a meaning, and it has nothing to do with the Facebook assholes. Least of all Fuckerberg.
To the point: This policy change is evil as it gets. They explicitly invite hatred targeted against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no grey area here, this is evil, period. And thanks to the new fascist administration divided states of southern northern america, it will succeed, business wise. But I still get to spit into the face of every person who uses their platform anyways.
Moderation = not showing things to people who do not want to see these things. If you are an LGBT person and do not want to ever see people calling you and people like you mentally ill, then hiding those things from you is moderation, completely legitimate, an important part of making the platform a more welcoming place. I don’t usually want to see people doing that either in my feed (and in fact I don’t, because I follow entirely different things on Facebook).
Censorship = not showing things to people even though they want to see these things. If a group of people who believe that LGBT people are mentally ill are talking to each other about these beliefs, then preventing them from doing so is censorship, it doesn’t make the platform a more welcoming place because the people it would make feel unwelcome weren’t seeing it anyway.
That is what I (and the linked blog post) am trying to say. You may still think censorship is in some cases a good thing, but I think it’s important to make the distinction.
Censorship = not showing things to people even though they want to see these things. If a group of people who believe that LGBT people are mentally ill are talking to each other about these beliefs, then preventing them from doing so is censorship, it doesn’t make the platform a more welcoming place because the people it would make feel unwelcome weren’t seeing it anyway.
That is a very weird explanation / example.
Hiding abuse from the targets but letting the abusers talk freely is a concept by morons for morons. Once could say that people who generalize that “LGBTQ [you forgot a Q there] people are mentally ill” are mentally ill themselves. Anyone thinking that it is okay to make a judgement about a group of people based on their gender identity should probably see a therapist themselves because they are definitely NOT NORMAL.
Gee I wonder why he’s suddenly decided to start moving parts of the business to Texas… little Musk-ette over here…
All of this is very likely to kiss the ring of Herr Trump
All of this is very likely to kiss the ring of Herr Trump
Not likely, obviously.
That’s Führer Trump to you, worm!
i prefer to call him herr trump.
The Turd Reich is upon us.
All heil!
Unfortunately it’s a very rational choice to cozy up to an incoming fascist dictator.
“Rational”!? No, that’s false. Though it might be reasonable for someone who works for a living. But the only thing they are risking is their “high score”, nothing else. Literally nothing a billionaire does is rational, and that goes for every single one of them. I feel like we all constantly forget how much $1 billion is. https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ These people have several or hundreds of times that! Don’t forget they didn’t actually earn it. Plus, it’s still not enough. They choose to spend their time “working” and influencing governments instead of spending time with family. Power and money, they can never have enough…
Can you imagine your generational line’s entire lives being paid for before they’re even born plus the ability to literally solve suffering in society. Homelessness? Malnourishment? Drought? Hunger? The amount of wealth they sit on could literally solve any problem, anywhere in the world with a signed check and it wouldn’t even affect their day-to-day life at all. They just choose not to. I can’t imagine it. That’s what’s wrong with billionaires and why they’re not rational at all…
For some reason you are conflating “rational” with “moral.”
But I’m not. To distill my rambling: it’s not rational to feel the need to “cozy up to an incoming fascist dictator.” Because billionaires simply don’t have needs. Housing, healthcare, education, food, security, it’s all paid for, for the next 100 generations. That was my point.
The parts about morality were 100% me ranting…
Who’s making the argument that cozying up with a dictator makes the difference between them being able to meet their lowest Mazlow needs?
I’m not familiar with that term. I thought we were discussing why it’s rational?
A) then look it up; concept or vocabulary, doesn’t matter, Google it before saying it’s whataboutism. The point was salient.
B) self preservation is rational.
C) parasites kill to survive in nature.
D) something sucking for an observer, doesn’t make the observed’s rationale illogical.
- Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp/Oculus
- Amazon
- Apple
- OpenAI
I am surprised myself, but making progress of not using their products. For example did not buy any gift via Amazon this Christmas.
He is going to be bare ass naked running down the halls screaming for employees to “come at me bro”
He’d probably win ngl.
I’m not glad that someone stood up for the billionaire.
But good for you ?
I aint standing up for him just pointing out hes been trained to fight by professionals. Ohh and hes won competitions for it.
Yeah people drastically underestimate the gulf between randos and anybody who’s had even a little decent training.
