... capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

This is like the one fight that isn't part of the culture war.

Nobody decrees who is stupid or not. That's a judgement everyone makes for themselves.

If you want to “Give people the resources to educate themselves”, you have to have a definition of stupid and not stupid that guides your choice of what is and isn’t good education; in order to “Give them the benefit of the doubt, once”, you have to have a criteria for when they’ve stopped being stupid.

No. I don't.

When I hear people talking about climate change like it doesn't exist, or has "concerns" about transgender people existence, or something like that, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are just ignorant. I'll be willing to talk to them, and maybe explain some of the misconceptions they might have.

But if they aren't willing to listen, then they... Are either stupid or malicious. But the difference isn't meaningful. They act exactly the same, either way.

They don't have to agree me thinking they are either stupid or malicious. It literally changes nothing if they disagree.

What? Quite obviously not what I said.

Alright I don't know who you are talking to, but it's very clearly not me.

Yeah I still think you are talking about something else?

Okay, sure, what about vaccines then? Hypothetically, I think the idea that we shoot ourselves full of mercury and viruses is extremely stupid. Malicious too, by your model. And also, I don’t think climate change is real, so now I think you’re stupid and you think I’m stupid and it’s he said she said and if we both think the other is being malicious we have a brawl.

In reality though some people are right and some people are wrong. The person who talks about vaccines as just "shooting ourselves full of mercury and viruses" is either stupid or malicious. What they think of me doesn't matter, because this conversation is about how I should treat this hypothetical person.

And that was the point I made. Ultimately it doesn't matter if they are stupid or malicious, I should treat them the same way. Because their intent doesn't really matter, their actions do.

The thing that fixes this is a definition of “stupid” that we both agree on that is clear, useful, and objective. What is that definition?

That is not how language or communication works...

People who are thought of as stupid, rarely agree that they are stupid. Same goes for malicious, to be honest.

I mean, people do treat those things as malicious already. So if anything returning the same treatment would be fair-play.

But more to the point, I don't think that's analogous to what the above posters was trying to say? A person "being" transgender/poor/an immigrant isn't the same as say, a person denying climate change.

And that's how I read the above commenter. There are two reasons for people to hold a climate-change-denying view, ignorance and malice. Ignorance can be met with education. But if a person begins holding onto their ignorance, their actions are fundamentally indistinguishable from malice.

I assumed it was a comment about the tactics we decide to employ when dealing with people. And at a certain point, if a person is stupid or if they're malicious... Well it sorta does not matter.

At some point, does it matter?

Give people the resources to educate themselves. Give them the benefit of the doubt, once. But after that? Screw 'em. Move on without 'em.

Removing bigotry is the opposite of an echo chamber, really. Diverse opinions flourish when people with diverse experiences feel comfortable sharing their views.

Bigotry is a very mono-faceted opinion. It is basically always just a derivation of "Those people, who are different, are [inferior|dangerous|the cause of our problems|etc.]". And bigotry makes people feel uncomfortable.

So by removing a single viewpoint, you encourage the discussion of many more viewpoints. Alternatively, when you tolerate bigotry, the only people who stick around are the people to whom that bigotry is tolerable. There's a reason platforms become cesspools when they refuse to take out the trash.

I can't really relate? At least on my desktop. The software manager integrates with Flatpaks and upgrades them at the same time.

For most apps I'm going to prefer the usual way of doing things. But there are some apps that I actually kinda prefer as Flatpaks. Like Calibre I'm happy to install as a Flatpak. The updates are faster and it doesn't add a whole host of dependencies that only it uses to my system.

Definitely! I wouldn't mess around with it either.

Was going to say, this sounds more like a prank from a friend who had access to the machine, than an actual hack. A malicious hacker isn't going to drop a "hibro.txt" on your desktop to mess with you. They aren't going to be interactively watching your session at all. They're going to silently keylog you for financial or identity details, or they're going to install ransomware.

i wish there was a paltform where everyone could have a respectable discussion without trolls or extremism…where people from every background could freely share their views and have a civil discussion

Such a place doesn't exist, and has never existed. In fact, it cannot exist. Because some groups and opinions are almost mutually exclusive, so you won't have them both in the same space. If you have a platform that tolerates hatespeech, the targets of that hatespeech will naturally leave.

If your goal is to encourage the broadest diversity of opinions, some moderation is always going to be necessary.