

Good on the AFP for being willing to put the critical context in the headline instead of just trying to present bland data.
Good on the AFP for being willing to put the critical context in the headline instead of just trying to present bland data.
They had to make sure to have quality kneepads… You know why.
Oh, I do know why! You really made fun of them good by implying they do gay stuff.
Jewish.
Though for this specific topic “genocide of Jewish people” would be better than “Jewish genocide” as the latter is unclear if the genocide is being perpetuated by or against Jewish people (and also the larger Jewish population shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of Israel). Neither would have alarm bells going off in the same way as using “Jew” as an adjective though. That’s a very specific white supremacist phrasing.
That’s good to hear. In the future, don’t use “Jew” as an adjective. It’s pretty much exclusively used by antisemites.
Man the phrasing for this comment is so suspicious. People who care about Jewish people do not use “Jew” as an adjective.
You do now.
Canada is sending drugs or something, but conservatives have never cared about illegal immigration by white people. Latinos however are “different” and don’t belong here. Currently that means non-American Latinos and the US, but it’ll extend to Latino Americans in the wrong place within the US. It’s never been about citizenship.
That’s literally been the last year and you felt fine the whole time.
I mean, we should also be paying. We had an integral role in the genocide.
And the data is not available. Knowing the weights of a model doesn’t really tell us much about its training costs.
And on a story about him literally supporting the racist nationalist Nazi-successor party in Germany. It’s not even like they need to remember some external context to clear up their cowardly confusion.
Apply this viewpoint to literally anything Trump says. It’s nonsense. Are you going to moderate someone saying “Trump doesn’t care about the environment”? He said his first administration’s priority was to “have the cleanest air”. That’s his policy, right?
Risky click.
Edit: It’s unregistered. Which I view as a total failure of the Lemmy community.
They don’t have legal jurisdiction in the United States either!
Same goes when I remove the arguments about … how the Uyghur genocide is all made up by Western powers to make China look bad.
What an example to choose. I.C.C. Won’t Investigate China’s Detention of Muslims
TALK TO YOUR FELLOW MODERATORS. This is both a massive failure as a moderator and breaking your own civility rules. I’ve been a mod, it’s a hard job, but right now you’re totally failing at the role and need to step back and reevaluate what you’ve been doing.
Holy fuck man, go talk to one of your other mods, because you’re not really not addressing this at all.
This was never a legal matter. YOU injected that to justify moderating a moral viewpoint. The original comments are in the modlog. They weren’t making a statement about law. I wasn’t making a statement about law. YOU are the one defining the only legitimate “responsibility” a human can hold being if they are charged with a crime.
Do you think China is not responsible for the genocide of the Uyghurs because the ICC isn’t charging them? Was Netanyahu not responsible for the genocide before the ICC case? Are only Netanyahu and Gallant responsible because they were the only ones charged? “What the court says is the only allowed truth” is such a broken viewpoint for a moderator to hold on a message board.
Your subjective notion of what’s “philosophically true” cannot be objectively proven one way or the other. That’s the very nature of philosophy.
YES. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT. You moderated a subjective opinion as misinformation and then justified it with your own subjective opinion. Then insisted you were making an objective decision by pretending this was a conversation about the ICC. What the ICC thinks is irrelevant to the whole conversation. You can cite them as much as you want, but it was never the question being discussed. And like really trivially obviously so.
NO, IT ISN’T. The discussion was never about legal liability. You made that excuse! Whether Biden is responsible is a moral question, not a legal one. There’s whole fields of moral philosophy about these things. You can be responsible for simply not stopping a third party from doing something, let alone actively enabling them.
But you have to accept the reality that only a very small fringe believes Biden is to blame for this.
Even if that’s true, that doesn’t matter, and SUBJECTIVELY, I think you’re the one with a weird minority position (no responsibility for arming someone known to be dangerous). The whole point is that neither of these position is an objective truth, because they’re about moral belief. You’ve got an opinion, it could even be the majority opinion, but it’s an OPINION, because the whole question doesn’t have an objective answer.
I really don’t get how you think this is a legal question, or that the ICC would be the ultimate deciding body of what legitimate opinions people can hold about responsibility for immoral acts. It’s a baffling opinion, and I’d love to do this debate back and forth, but the resolution of our moral debate is irrelevant, because the real problem is that you’re moderating based on a subjective belief and for some reason unable to even recognize that moral responsibility is a subjective topic.
JFC dude. The ICC is not the arbiter of people’s legitimate moral philosophy and you are not a judge at the Hague. You can’t export your moral (or moderation) judgement to the court system.
They don’t seem to actually identify the cookies as tracking (as opposed to just identifying that the account can bypass further challenges), just assuming that any third party cookie has a monetary tracking value.
It also appears to be unreviewed and unpublished a few years later. Just being in paper format and up on arXiv doesn’t mean that the contents are reliable science.