Nah, I just saw two people arguing in a group chat once and felt an immediate need to block the one that sent that image.

Honestly if you send this to someone you disagree with you just come across as the biggest tool ever.

Turn back now!

Brendan Eich founded Brave after being booted from Mozilla over his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Shame about the crypto bs and homophobia though.

It doesn’t help that there’s basically no documentation for how to use the Gecko engine either.

The engine is where like 95% of the complexity lies though. Maybe more.

In this case having more browser engines not under Google’s control is probably a good thing. Although this effort might’ve been better spent working on Servo.

You don’t really get the personal touch there though.

I think it’s most likely pressure from payment processors.

deleted by creator

I think they weren’t asking for an idea that would actually make the world a better place but rather one that somebody on some level believes would make the world a better place. Hence it still being a stupid idea.

It’s not a paper, it’s a stream-of-consciousness style blog post.

Ah yes, newsweek. Truly a paragon of human rights advocacy.

Pretty sure 5 is Artemis Fowl.

If you’re dead set on assigning a name to it I’d say they’re making an irrelevant conclusion, the basic facts are correct but they do not apply to the situation at hand.

No, you’re not basing your assumptions on how genuine someone is being, you’re basing your assumptions on your assumptions of how genuine they’re being.

Dismissing someone’s arguments by establishing they’re acting in bad faith is a valid rhetorical tactic but it doesn’t work if you can’t establish that. And labeling their argument as something it isn’t doesn’t help with that.

Addressing someone’s presumed ignorance is helpful because you’re also providing information for onlookers, pointing out the harmful effects of what someone’s saying (like potentially muddying the waters when it comes to recognizing dog whistles) is constructive, attacking anyone who may be acting in bad faith but could just as easily just be ignorant is just a waste of your energy.

I’m not particularly interested in defending the person you replied to, I don’t think they made a good case either. I just want people to be a bit more discerning with the terms they use. (And I have a compulsive need to correct people which I’m aware is really annoying.)

Yes, I simplified for the sake of brevity. But you’re reading a lot into their comments that just isn’t there. Yes they were running interference for a nazi (and not making a particularly compelling case) but there’s nothing to indicate it was intentional. (It’s not a strawman argument either btw, unless you’re claiming they intentionally ignored the boogaloo reference rather than just not knowing about them.)

Edit: Also I don’t think not making assumptions about someone’s motivations is the same thing as ‘putting faith’ in them.

No, but it is primarily a white supremacists movement and the ‘88’ on the license plate kinda takes away all doubt.

Moving the goalposts means changing the rules of a debate while having it. They said they’d agree with them being a Nazi if there was evidence beyond the number 88 being on the license plate, someone else pointed out what the “BOOG” meant, they accepted that the person who owns the car is a Nazi. No goalposts moved.