> I don't really know how to respond politely to downplaying genocide.
Sorry. I don't intend to downplay genocide and I don't want to come across that way.
What I'm trying to critique is (so far as I can read it from your post) your inability to see that two things can be the same in one respect - but apparently not notice that one is much bigger than the other.
If it helps, I'm not American and don't have any option to 'win' as far as US politics goes. I think you are right that Kamala Harris was facilitating genocide. But I also think you are wrong to not take into account that Donald Trump is a whole order of magnitude worse.
I suspect it's projection as a defense, because a number of Brits do see the US as some sort of failing police state that's snatching people off the streets.
I guess if you get your attack in first you'll be able to go "we're not the fascists, you're the fascists."
None of that is to excuse the legislation, of course, which is not very good and will have a lot of poor consequences.
> Trump says many things that nobody actually believes.
It's not a valid argument to use the general case here. Because in the case of this particular statement, it clearly isn't true that "nobody actually believes" it. It's clear that many people actually believe it.
> That's actually a good political strategy in tough times: Keep your opponents always unsure about what you're gonna do next.
I mean, sure. But in this case Denmark thought they were an ally, not an opponent. Should they also be unsure about whether one of their territories is going to be attacked?
A scientific theory doesn't have to be wrong or right. It can simply be useful as long as the limitations are understood. Eg, the domains where it applies and the domains where you shouldn't use it.
Isaac Asimov wrote a really great essay about this, in which he pointed out that some people thought the Earth was flat. And it is flat, on a local scale. Then people thought it was round. And it is round, just not exactly. Then it was considered an oblate sphere. And it is an oblate sphere - just not exactly.
The main theme of his essay is to point out that a theory can be wrong, but pretty accurate. Enough for rough work. And the one that replaces it can also be wrong, but even closer. Etc. So all theories in succession can be wrong. The real question is how wrong a theory is, and how useful it is.
To be honest, my ethical calculation comes out the other way around.
If someone is playing honest with me in good faith, and they ask for a show of good faith back, I think reciprocity, good manners and ethics favour the idea that I should do so.
If someone asks me to play fair with them, and then tries to shaft me - then any consideration I might have had for their position goes out the window. I don’t feel the slightest need to play fair with them because they are a bad faith actor.
To be clear, this is purely an opinion about ads on YouTube and whether I have to sit in one of two ethical buckets, not advocating an anything goes position.
My opinion is that there’s a third ethical position, which is a bit like the classical solution to the prisoner’s dilemma: co-operate until the other person plays you false. After that, don’t consider them a friend, and there’s no ethical problem in refusing to cooperate with them.
> I don’t like ads, but I think the only ethical options are posting to avoid them (preferably direct to artists) or watching ads
I think that ethical position is weakened by the fact many ads are links to scams and unethical things. You aren't just supporting creators by watching adverts, you're also potentially exposing yourself to bad faith actors.
> If those companies using chat bots are failing to provide value, then they won't be competitive and they will go away.
The difficulty is, this is obscured to the customer.
Let's say I have a broadband account in a country with competitors I can choose between (eg the UK, where I can have BT or Virgin). I've already chosen the best package for me. I'm ringing up after six months of good service to fix my intermittent line drop.
The chat bot is terrible and I have to wait until the problem goes away on its own.
Unfortunately for me, I can't just guarantee that switching to the other service will make a difference, because chat bots are not core service. I can compare broadband options and pick the best, and I'm already on that. Now I have to gamble that some combination of:
(broadband option) + (customer service) is higher than the one I'm on.
Unfortunately for me, I have no way of checking this. There's every chance that I'll end up on a worse broadband option and a worse customer service option.
I don't even mind the sponsored placements in my search. I'd just like a search for X to give me a page full of X, not random junk bearing no relationship to X.
I first turned on my ipad, then sat for several minutes staring at a box on the screen that clearly wanted input but had no continue button. Only slowly did it dawn on me that there was a hidden scroll region that would enable it.
There are loads of murder methods the author hasn't thought of.
Just off the top of my head, you could have murder by: g-forces, laser (James Bond), removal of medicine, excitement to heart attack, introduction of disease, cannibalism, wood chipper, exsanguination, leaving no choice but suicide, freezing, and, in the case of one famous King of England, a red hot poker up the rear end. I'm sure I've read all of these at some time in one book or another.
On the other hand, 30 million Raspberry Pis have been sold and an enormous number of people are learning to code as a result of free online resources. I'm not so sure the end of general-purpose computing for the masses is all that over.
Even your example describes someone who, while he isn't fluent with it, actually owns a general purpose computer.
I'm not sure whether it's one of his expected use-cases, but his work has made it so simple for me to get things from my writing group quickly onto my kindle. Plus, my own draft stories.
As someone who spends far too long on a computer screen as it is, the simple workflow of putting things easily on a kindle has been a real positive for me. And doubly so in this time of lockdown and Covid.
If the author does browse these forums - thank you so much for your work.
My prediction: this will be the one post where the 1% rule doesn't apply, as a much larger number will be spurred into action by the topic in question - and end up actually saying something.
Even if your life is dominated entirely by self-interest, and the interests of the rest of the population isn't important to you, don't you have any elderly relatives? Or friends with pre-existing conditions?
Speaking only for myself, I have elderly in-laws who I'd rather stick around, a wife with asthma and I know well two people on immunosuppressants. So I'm not taking this lightly at all.
Sorry. I don't intend to downplay genocide and I don't want to come across that way.
What I'm trying to critique is (so far as I can read it from your post) your inability to see that two things can be the same in one respect - but apparently not notice that one is much bigger than the other.
If it helps, I'm not American and don't have any option to 'win' as far as US politics goes. I think you are right that Kamala Harris was facilitating genocide. But I also think you are wrong to not take into account that Donald Trump is a whole order of magnitude worse.