Tlaloc_Temporal

A hot stove has it’s uses as well.

I can see the different levels of quote, but there’s also spaces between them. Too many line breaks maybe?

Your reader might not support nested quotes though.

Agreed. While I realize I am making some fuss about being right, being left and able to try again is far more important.

By that same logic, should president Truman have been ousted after WWII? Should the Canadian trucker convoy have torched parliament? Should all governments decend into chaos as soon as any group doesn’t like them?

I’m not saying this specific turn of events shouldn’t be resisted, I’m looking for better logic, a reason why the rules shouldn’t apply here. Something like the overt and immediate threat to people’s wellbeing and freedom. It doesn’t matter how good or bad this administration is going to be according to an individual, it matters that they’re going to cause a lot of unnecessary harm to a lot of people. Subjective opinions are how we got here.

Maybe we’re past the point of that mattering, perhaps a critical mass of people just want to cause harm and a lot of fucked up shit is inevitable, but I do hope to keep a sense of ethics and justice to rebuild when the fight for existence ends. I don’t want to become the uncritical extremists we’re fighting against.

I’m 50-50 on this. Peaceful transition of power is about respecting the decision of the people. A reasonable reason to buck the peaceful transition would be if it didn’t align with the will of the people, but that will is so obfusicated and twisted that I can’t tell what it even is anymore. If you have an issue with the transition, you should have an issue with the process that got you there. Bucking only the transition isn’t attacking the issue, it’s throwing a tantrum because you lost.

A miscarriage of justice isn’t solved with a pardon, it needs systemic changes. The rules are wrong, and ignoring them sometimes won’t make things right. What I would respect is rebuilding the system to be more representative and less able to be twisted. Gerrymandering, conflicts of interest, voting availability, lobbying, voter knowledge, even the journalism industry as a whole; there are lots of huge problems out there, ignoring those resorting to an armed “nuh uh” at the last moment is stupid.

That said, installing a dictator has never gone well, and being petty and stupid is probably worth avoiding that. It’s probably worth quite a bit more really. So I wouldn’t like it, but I really couldn’t complain.

The fingers aren’t the bottleneck, it’s the brain. I type just as fast with two fingers as with ten.

Where are you getting silence from? If speaking to an entire nation is a right, why don’t I have that opportunity?

Hate speech and calls for violence are already exceptions to freedom of speech. You know, things that can cause irreparable harm. Blatant lies from government officials can also cause harm, yet you would say any impairment of a politician’s ability to say literally anything is “silencing them”.

I fully support your right to say almost anything as a citizen, but not as a doctor, teacher, lawyer, or other professional with power. A doctor selling snake oil to their patients shouldn’t be a doctor, a teacher shouldn’t be preseting flat earth as the truth, a lawyer shouldn’t be giving poor council for their own benefit, and a politician shouldn’t be spreading egregious lies to their constituents.

The method I proposed was a response to another method (modifying freedom of speech), which I thought was better, as it could leave freedom of speech intact as is. I then immediately point out that this method would still have issues, because determining truth is hard. Passing judgment on even the most ridiculously well supported scientific facts is something basically all courts shy away from, and I don’t think the currect political landscape is capable of attempting reasonably unbiased legislation something so central to our culture. I wonder if such a determination is even possible to make reasonably in the style of government we’ve used for the last few centuries.

Where in this do you find a will to silence people I disagree with?

Not every private company can just do anything. ITAR still applies to SpaceX, the military industrial complex still wants political control over it’s suppliers, telecom corps still need to adhere to network standards, and COPPA was applied to YouTube (and they dealt with that terribly).

As much as capitalism wants to push everything as far as the system will bear, we can change that. We can say that social platforms need special care, or government officials need to be held to a higher standard. The issue at this point is political will, wich is growing in many directions at the moment.

The problem with specifically controlling speech is that we don’t have any system unbiased enough to be responsible for such a broad aspect of society. Some specific cases with some general rules might be useful though, but again I don’t trust our current systems to make good rules. This is all speculation on how to prevent public manipulation, and it probably won’t work well when used to root it out once established.

Is medical malpractice censorship? Legal malpractice? Financial malpractice? Engineering malpractice? Academic malpractice?

I don’t want to use government sanctions explicitly because government decisions tend toward political or popular outcomes, not reasonable outcomes. When a doctor SAs their patients, we don’t saction them; we revoke their medical license. Fiduciary negligence calls for a lawsuit, not direct government action (although lawsuits have issues as well).

I’m not advocating for community action either (I would hope individuals would check for integrity, but that obviously doesn’t happen enough ATM), shunning or excuding people from certain communities is something I want to avoid. This is definitely not excommunication (even if we broaden the term beyond it’s explicitly catholic meaning), I very much do not want to banish or otherwise impact affected persons’ quality of life. It’s simply about practising a privileged profession.

You should be able to say whatever you want without government censorship, but we shouldn’t be giving all ideas privileged platforms. Libel is a very difficult thing to prosecute for, but I think we need to challenge more publically broadcast statements. To broadcast as “News” or something authoritative would be a privilege, like practing medicine or law.

Even in this hypothetical situation, the definition of reasonable accuracy would have to be determined methodologically, as political entities and the public cannot be trusted to decide in good faith. That’s the crux of trying to implement public deplatforming; objective value judgments. We can get useably close with peer-reviewed papers, but it’s still vulnerable to political and monetary influence.

To summarize: I do not want to silence anyone, just restrict access to the official-looking megaphone and clipboard. Even then, how that access is restricted is a difficult problem considering the conflicting interests around it.

Excommunication? What? This is requiring journalistic integrity to work in journalism, just like how medical malpractice can make you lose your medical license or legal malpractice can get you disbarred. There is precidence for this system, and I chose it specifically to reduce punishments and make sure those affected can still make a living.

I even point out one of the big issues of truth being difficult to define, and how this system might just push the problem down the road, and wonder if the actual problem (politics becomming unbound by reality for political gain, or a loss of political integrity) can even be regulated at all.

Hmm? A creative limitation? How have I done that?

I’m advocating for maintaining freedom from government censorship by using an industry ban instead. Specifically in the realms of news and knowledge, not entertainment. I don’t think that impinges on any (currently held) right, democratic or not.

Already in effect. Lost of basic services require a mailing address, which means either rent or property taxes. Medical care often requires a job to grant insurance, and any chronic or ongoing illness is the definition of a subscription.

Instead of modifying freedom of speech, make large-scale lies jusification to banish someone from the industry, like sex-offenders and schools.

Still a bit vague and as always figuring out what’s true is hard and ajudicating truth is even harder, but any errors won’t be nearly as bad, and it would still be effective.

The core issue here is still agreeing on truth though. Can you define a method of ajudicating truth that can’t be misused by an overwhelming amount of bad-faith actors? Can you bind an organization to a method even if every member wants something else?

I think you missed the reasoning behind the “dead” part.

If the hammer doesn’t bounce when it hits, it’s not as lively, and lands like a dead body.

Well it does have a claw, but it specifically has the nail holder.

Large corporations are overly litigious. Individuals can’t afford to be litigious enough.

As AliasVortex@lemmy.world said, all parts of Factorio are mods, and can be enabled separately. The Base mod, which can’t be disabled has the vanilla game; the Quality and Elevated Rail mods, which are from the Space Age DLC but can be activated whenever; and the Space Age mod.

I don’t know which mod is responsible for changing science and recipes though. Coupd be either side.

Because vampires can’t cross boundaries without permission, the answer is no, they can’t come in until allowed in.

That sounds more like Authoritarianism…

Canada. There are other wars the U.S. has lost, but I don’t know how involved the U.S. Army was in them.