It should be reminded that emails exchanged between Protonmail and any recipient who use ordinary email server are not secure. In order to achieve security you have to mail with other Protonmail user or use PGP.
They have an option to send a secure email to "normal" email addresses which works by sending them an https link to click. You must have a pre-arranged password with the other person for this to work, but it is possible.
Well, his 'Extreme edition' is actually not so extreme. This is how Debian base installation looks like.
A server can perfectly run without dbus, accountsservice, logind, policykit and acpid. And, unlike he wrote, timesyncd NTP synchronization works well without dbus.
(Debian base has also cron and rsyslog running by default, for legacy reasons.)
Of course, the point is that they can't be refuted. They're not claims for which a refutation is a well-defined concept.
Sartre once wrote this about anti-Semites, but it applies equally well here (and, to be clear, I am making no implication about whether the people using the same tactics today are also anti-Semites, just that they're using the same tactics):
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side."
The only winning move, for those of us who believe in words, is not to play.
It was never about "corruption" in journalism, especially not in gaming journalism. If it had been, it would have focused on AAA devs rather than a random indie developer who was a woman.
You're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words responsibly - I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to anti-Semitism as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet that was the objection. You are obligated to take seriously the claim that this is about ethics in journalism, when it simultaneously is and isn't, and yet 'piotrjurkiewicz feels no obligation to take what I said seriously.
In any case, the rest of Sartre's essay is completely on point. Among other things, it addresses this exact ability to believe a thing and its contradiction, and make it only a problem for the people who are trying to argue against them in good faith - it's quite scary how accurately Sartre in 1944 was able to understand these modes of trolling (and trolling is really the term for it). Harvard has the first chapter online:
There's an interesting question in there of what, exactly, the anti-Semite is going to do once they're not able to hate the Jew. That's the only thing Sartre couldn't see in 1944, but he did see that it's not about anything the Jewish people are or do, but as the other. Today we've declared anti-Semitism unacceptable, but we've got enough other others.
If you can figure out a way to make introduce your general argument without referencing anti-semitism, you will be much less open to hijacking of the conversation in just the way you observe here. Especially in online discussions, introducing flame-war inducing topics even in passing is likely to derail the conversation.
I understand 'geofft was quoting Sartre (and it's a great quote). I'm arguing that while the quote might be useful and perfectly appropriate to the context, that it's a poor choice to introduce in an online discussion where the interlocutors are already adversarial. Anti-semitism is accidental to the argument, but is easy for someone to uncharitably grab on to, derailing the discussion and leading to a flame war. 'geofft even points this out:
You're falling for the trick. 'piotrjurkiewicz isn't using words responsibly - I specifically and clearly said that I'm not comparing anyone to anti-Semitism as a belief, just the pattern of rhetorical arguments, and yet that was the objection.
If the goal is to have a useful discussion, if you can come up with different quote or analogy that does not include anti-semitism, in my opinion the discussion would be better served.
I think you, too, are falling for the trick he was describing, of taking someone at their word who is manifestly unwilling to be held to their own word. It's hard to read 'geofft's comment and think of a way he could have been clearer that he was not calling commenters anti-Semites.
I feel like I’m being daft here. I’m going to beg your patience and ask a
favor: if there’s something I’m saying that you agree with, or that you at
least don’t think I’m wrong about, would you point it out? I can’t tell I’m
completely off base or am just missing subtle (or somewhere in between).
I agree that 'geofft is making very clear from the outset that the quote
is being used to illustrate the tactics only, that no parallel is to be
drawn with respect to anti-Semites. I also know that I sometimes accidently
miss points when reading someone’s comment, particularly when they’re
discussing another side of the topic under discussion. Gotta fight against
my tribal bias, and understand that others may be trying–and sometimes
failing—to do the same.
Here’s how I view the discussion between 'geofft and 'piotrjurkiewicz.
- 'geofft makes a point, illustrated with a quote by Satre describing a
rhetorical tactic of anti-Semites.
- 'piotrjurkiewicz behaves exactly as Satre describes.
- 'pjc50 falls for the rhetorical tactic Satre describes.
- 'geofft points this out
- I argue that by choosing different words to make the same point
Satre does might defend 'geofft from the tactic.
From my point of view, 'piotrjurkiewicz is being either uncharitable, or
misreading 'geofft by accident or ignorance, most likely the first. I could
point this out, but if 'piotrjurkiewicz is arguing uncharitably, it isn’t going
to make a difference, and most likely antagonize them, effectively feeding the
troll. I see 'geofft as an honest, good faith interlocuter, so it’s more worth
my time to engage with 'geofft. I’ll learn regardless, that something about my
assessment about 'geofft or the discussion was mistaken—the latter appearing
increasingly likely.
You’re implying that regardless of the words 'geofft uses, 'piotrjurkiewicz
is going to uncharitably interpret them, correct? Which does again parallel
the point of the Sartre quote. I can see how your assessment that I might
be falling for this is accurate, and I do purposefully leave myself open to
that to some extent, at least until I see that that’s the case (I hope). By
choosing words that are less likely to distract from the point I’m trying to
make, hopefully I can make that assessment more quickly, by pushing them to
the point where “they will abruptly fall silent”, giving them the least
amount of room to maneuver and play.
I can also see how this can be folly. Looking up where this quote is taken
from (“Anti-Semite and Jew”), I also find this quote: “The rational man
groans as he gropes for the truth; he knows that his reasoning is no more
than tentative, that other considerations may supervene to cast doubt on it.”
I understand that viscerally.
My head’s spinning a little bit, having a discussion about discussion tactics
about discussion tactics—have I incepted enough? Maybe Sartre was trolling? ;)
Thank you for pushing me on this. I’m learning, er, groaning a lot.
I don't think Guardian is a trustworthy source on this, having in mind their heavy left bias. They won't present any arguments which could undermine the narration that it was pure anti-women witchhunt, simply because it won't fit their ideological line.
Look, they even managed to somehow connect the 2-years old event to the last month's three most hot keywords of left-leaning media: Trump, alt-right and hate. This shows that this article is a opinion piece targeted to a specific group of readers in order to amplify their existing beliefs, rather than a balanced description of facts.
Please argue from facts rather than accusations of bias. Otherwise you can never get to the heart of the matter: you can always dismiss your interlocutor or some source because of bias, or position, which everyone has because we're human.
If you question the facts of the piece, please do and point out what they are and provide evidence for your position. If you think there are no facts in the piece, point that out, too. If you think it's not the whole picture, that's another great idea: show what's missing. Lots of great opportunities to say something constructive.
Go to the Guardian article, press ctrl+f and type:
- corruption
- review
- buy
Now you see what is missing. I don't say that Gamergate didn't evolved into mostly hate driven movement in its latter phase, but its primary cause must not be ignored.
Nevertheless, I don't want to waste my time on discussing it, since my comment was about mjg59 behavior, not Gamergate (and I didn't followed it enough to discuss it in details).
He was neglecting his maintainers duties, for example he accepted a patch from a well-known troll, which in fact broke some things. So he would have to step down from maintenance anyway. (This is not any secret info, it all can be read on LKML.)
Instead he decided to play drama and presented Gamergate as a reason of stepping down. And replaced all comments who were disproving his statement with "Fart fart fart".
Having in mind all of that, I don't thing calling him 'clown' and describing his actions as childish is an exaggeration.
I think this is confusing to outsiders, because English media reports these as hate speech, whereas hate speech actually refers to something else in Germany. In Germany these incidents are Volksverhetzung (~demagoguery). The bar for "achieving" it is set quite high:
> Wer in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören,
Who does one of the following in a way apt to disturb/destroy public peace/harmony
> (1) gegen eine nationale, rassische, religiöse oder durch ihre ethnische Herkunft bestimmte Gruppe, gegen Teile der Bevölkerung oder gegen einen Einzelnen wegen seiner Zugehörigkeit zu einer vorbezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung zum Hass aufstachelt, zu Gewalt- oder Willkürmaßnahmen auffordert oder
agitate against national/racial/religious or ethnic group, or against parts of the public or against private persons due to their belonging to a recognized group / part of the public, in order to incite hate or violence.
> (2) die Menschenwürde anderer dadurch angreift, dass er eine vorbezeichnete Gruppe, Teile der Bevölkerung oder einen Einzelnen wegen seiner Zugehörigkeit zu einer vorbezeichneten Gruppe oder zu einem Teil der Bevölkerung beschimpft, böswillig verächtlich macht oder verleumdet,
attacking the human dignity of <the same blob of text as above> or defames or libels.
In other words, to be sentenced for Volksverhetzung the court actually has to prove that you intentionallywanted to incite violence/hate against a defined group of people / person, while intentionally also fulfilling the first condition.
A bit like murder in Germany it is a crime of disposition (killing w/o disposition is Totschlag - or one of the more specific "XY with deadly outcome" crimes - not Mord), unlike murder it is not punishable in absence of disposition.
There is something to it. When I saw your comment it was 4 min old and already [dead]. Just like most of your other comments, no matter what topic they touch.
> IPv6 is faster for two reasons. The first is that many major operating systems and browsers like iOS, MacOS, Chrome and Firefox impose anywhere from a 25ms to 300ms artificial delay on connections made over IPv4.
He forgot to add that this only applies to dual-stack hosts...
After switching to GTK3 version (Arch) I noticed it is much more sluggish and feels slower than previous versions. There are also some inconsistencies or just breaks in interface (I assume it is related to theming).
