Oh shit… My mother was actually a computer… There was a time when that was an actual job title in certain fields.

Gonna have to register my mom now…

“COMPUTER OR COMPUTER-DRIVEN MACHINE OR DEVICE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT FROM A DIGITAL MODEL.”

I can print an origami pattern on my inkjet using my cell phone…

Reference to shining force on Sega Genesis, Gort was one of a select few characters who could use axes, and the heat axe was a good option to level him with

You wanna give that to Gort.

Yeah, it’s funny and nobody had mentioned it, so I did ;)

Alright, I’ll be that guy… Hippo…

Socialism is left/liberal as a concept (and so is capitalism, in actual fact)… It’s not left/liberal when implemented at scale…

The arbiter of resources, whatever or whoever that may be, invariably becomes right/authoritarian. The simple nature of the arbitration causes it, and a truly left/liberal society would, by necessity, require a lack of said arbitration.

Such a society cannot exist at scale. History has proven that repeatedly. A left/liberal society could arguably only exist as anarchy, and frankly, capitalism is far closer to that than communism is. The “every man for himself” nature of capitalism is inherently more capable of providing individual liberty and equal opportunity than the “to each according to his needs”, very simply because of the inherent requirement of having an entity judge that need… Said judging entity is inherently authoritarian in nature…

Browser gets a vote when it comes to HTML. Loading the site on your browser might not look the same as it does on someone else’s.

Hell… The author could have an adblock plugin themselves… :)

“Deep south”? Seriously? Why not “the stay puft marshmallow man”? If you’re gonna tempt fate with your naming choice, might as well have a little fun with it…

That’s a hella skimpy example, but yes.

Except that it’s wrong… AI is capable of creativity. It created the artist name. It’s clearly not a very developed or robust sense of creativity because it clearly just hashed up the name Hanna Montana, and the song is probably likewise just a hashed up existing song, but I’m guessing it probably did a better job of creating an original work than vanilla ice…

I think python is actually the oldest on that list… ??

A pi to host an SSD and run a plex server would take up as much space as two pair of socks in a sock drawer…

Just depends on what “hosting an on site cloud” means. If it’s just backup storage and a local-only Plex server for one or two tvs, you could get away with the socks ;)

If they banned all alcohol for everyone, its indiscriminate, and I would not consider it to be discrimination (I’d consider it a bad idea based on the obvious). In your example, a ban on wine, but not whiskey, with the publicly stated intention of reducing alcohol intake among women, would be the equivalent, and I’d absolutely consider that misogynistic. In the case of a wine ban, yes, it would be immoral to impose that ban, because it would be targeted at women specifically.

They aren’t banning cigarettes. They’re banning menthols, and the publicly stated intent is to affect use of cigarettes among minorities. The policy is specifically intended to affect a demographic. Not because I say so, or because I think it does… it’s what they’re citing as the basis of the policy… they published it as such.

The pragmatic solution is to ban cigarettes. That would still affect the minorities disparately, but it’s no longer an inherently racist proposal at that point, because it’s about tobacco use period, not just the tobacco use specific to the minorities.

It’s not a false analogy, it’s just brutally logical and completely disregards the merits of the situation…

Logging is the deadliest occupation on earth. Banning minorities from the logging industry would greatly improve their odds of survival. It’s exactly the same as banning their chosen cigarettes.

I don’t really have a preference on tobacco bans at all tbh. I do think people should have options, but I don’t disagree with the intent of smoking bans either… the issue here is, it’s not a choice between those two for everyone, it’s a selective ban that removes the options from a singular group, and the selection is based on race and orientation.

The merits of the ban are, in my opinion, not all that relevant. I don’t disagree with banning cigarettes entirely, I don’t disagree with onerous taxation as an incentive to reduce sales, I don’t object to any measures that are indiscriminate, because I don’t really care that much tbh, I switched to vapes in 2012.

I object to the specificity.

From another perspective, were talking about a ban on tobacco that selectively preserves tobacco use for straight white people… does that make it more clear why I object?

So it’s totally fine to target minorities with a ban if it means forward progress in disincentivising tobacco use? I disagree on the ends justifying the means in this case.

No arguments at all on the merits of reducing tobacco use, just an objection to throwing minorities under the bus in pursuit of it. I would not actually object to taxation as a means. I wouldn’t object to an outright ban even. My objection is to the specificity to minorities… that’s not cricket…

So if we ban minorities from the logging industry, that’s the opposite of racism? It’s the deadliest occupation on earth…

Fisherman, truck drivers, roofers… ban minorities from all of it to save their lives, because that’s the opposite of racism.

See the flaw in the logic here? Targeting a demographic is, by the simplest definition, an act of racism. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Banning minorities from entire industries would be to their ultimate benefit, and is obviously racist. Like Jim Crow obvious.

Your point is very problematical.

I agree with that.

The specific ban in question on this particular post isn’t a general matter though… it’s targeting minorities…

That kinda makes it a moot point in my opinion on wether or not prohibition is appropriate in general, because regardless of where you fall on the matter of bans or liberties, the specificity of the intended targets is wildly inappropriate, because it’s racist/homophobic, so I kinda disregarded the last point they made entirely :)

It’s racist to specifically target a type favored by minorities if your intent is to target minorities, and the stated intent is specifically to target minorities with a ban… ironically, to protect them from being discriminated against by their chosen type of cigarettes.

They published that… they very publicly are saying that they’re going to protect these minorities by directly targeting them with a ban. It’s not me saying it’s a racist/homophobic ban, it’s the published premise itself. The entire basis of the ban is published as being to keep cigarettes from affecting blacks, browns, and LGBTQ+ people by eliminating their preferred type.

How on earth are there people who don’t understand this? Are you so tied to the politics that you cannot or will not see this objectively? It’s blatant.

This apparently is an objectionable point to bring up… not sure if your downvotes are the “all or nothing” aspect, or the spotlighting of the blatant racist aspect, but it seems people don’t want to see this at face value :/

I’m with you though. The selective targeting is wrong. Equal ban or no ban is the right position to take IMHO.