ArchRecord

The paradox of tolerance at its finest.

You decide. We all decide.

On an individual basis, you can decide if you think an action is ethical or not based on if it, for instance, causes harm, and you dislike causing harm to others.

As a society, we broadly come to a consensus on what we consider ethical or not by majority opinion, and turn those into laws. It’s why murder is considered wrong, in both religious and non-religious institutions and societies at large.

For example, as a society, we deemed killing other humans to be wrong because then we would be at risk of being killed, and it made it harder for us to survive overall. Those who killed were ostracized, those who didn’t were not. No religion was required to form such a belief, but it can certainly be a part of religious teachings.

You can use the Bible as a framework for how you decide what’s moral or not, but it’s not the only way to do so.

If you fat shame a person, it could bring motivation to become healthier.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6565398/

“exposure to weight bias triggers physiological and behavioural changes linked to poor metabolic health and increased weight gain.”

“The more people are exposed to weight bias and discrimination, the more likely they are to gain weight and become obese, even if they were thin to begin with”

“Fat shaming is also linked to depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, eating disorders and exercise avoidance”

What you are advocating for directly leads to higher rates of obesity.

Suppressing them.

Your entire argument here is around discouraging sexual promiscuity (which is exclusively being advocated for specifically with consenting adults) and yet you also argue that a lack of reproduction/sex directly leads to grooming.

You can’t have both sides.

On top of that, many aspects about the church can lead to grooming that aren’t sexual repression, namely the power dynamics of religious officials, and the idea that those who are religious are more inherently “ethical” or “good” than others, and are thus less likely to do wrong.

she’s also promoting the decline of the nuclear family, because sexual freedom also means relationship instability.

“We find little evidence that having non-marital sexual relationships with multiple partners signals a disruption […in] marriage, or signals the future disinclination of singles to marry eventually” (1)

A woman that is sexually free also means that fatherhood with such a woman isn’t asured because a man can’t tell if the kids are his or not.

Wanting sexual freedom outside marriage is in no way similar to infidelity within existing relationships.

Men are substantially more likely to cheat than women. (2)

This also means that kids are more prone to be fatherless, lack proper guidance and get into crimes and delinquency.

This would only be affected by the initial personal freedom argument if the prior statements were true, which they are not.

Yes, the Bible and religions are restrictive, but they are somewhat useful and served purposes.

Certain individuals may find its restrictions useful to them.

Others may find them stifling.

You are arguing for morals based entirely on the writings of humans who witnessed unprovable events to be applied to all in society regardless of their current faith or beliefs.

If you find the Bible’s restrictions to be useful, then that’s perfectly fine for you, but don’t attempt to say they should apply for everyone, because of your faith.

Everybody is prone to sins and misconducts, me, you and priests too.

Should the people actively preaching against sin, supposedly following religious best practices, actively steeling themselves against sin not be substantially less likely to ever engage in such misconduct?

You’re not actually making a point here, you’re putting the very real threat of abuse by religious officials using their power in religious institutions as a means to groom children on the same level as the average person.

How have I never heard of this before!? I’ve been looking for exactly this for ages now.

Already spinning up a docker container!

it’s getting so hard nowadays

It’s definitely not easy, but sometimes we just do the best we can, even if it’s not the most that could be done.

Everyone has their own unique threat model. A random everyday person will have less need for personal privacy than, say, a government employee that works for an intelligence agency. Do what you can to protect what matters most to you, but don’t stress if you can’t upend your entire life to improve your privacy.

there are so many more important problems

You can support multiple solutions to world issues at the same time, without needing to make any individual one the most important one, or completely throwing out your other beliefs.

Privacy protects you from anything ranging from annoying ads, to targeted election misinformation, is key to dismantling the surveillance state that is regularly used to silence opposition to current political powers, and protects your right to free speech in a world where every government wishes they could control you just a bit more.

Privacy protects you from self-censorship. It keeps you safe from people who might want to harm you or your family for your views. It lets you protest oppressive policy.

Companies make money off your data. And what are these companies contributing to? Global warming through ever-expanding datacenters running AI models you didn’t ask for. Political campaigns that endorse monopolies. The exploitation of third-world countries.

By taking away their ability to sell you for profit, you indirectly reduce numerous other harms.

I just can’t remember why I thought it was something worth fighting for

The world is crazy. It’s not weird to let things like privacy fall to the wayside when seemingly larger problems pop up, but privacy doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Everything is interconnected, and privacy directly impacts these other issues.

It’s okay to just do what you can. the world isn’t perfect, and neither are we.

Privacy directly helps dismantle systems of power, surveillance, advertising, and manipulation. So if that’s worth it to you, then keep fighting.

And recently, Mozilla has been trying to develop a privacy-preserving ads business.

I’m not a big fan of ads, but if Mozilla can actually make ads that don’t track users, and are uninvasive, they might be able to garner some market share in the ad space, and distance their revenue from Google even further.

I think we’ll probably see a phone comparable to at least 2022 specs in the coming years, since they seem to release a new model every 2-3 years, with pretty decent improvements each time. Especially with their growing partnerships with chip manufacturers, it might even be possible to keep prices more reasonable too.

I currently use a phone released in 2022, and it’s perfectly functional for all my needs. Would more performance be nice? Sure, but yeah, I don’t actually need more than that.

If Fairphone could reach that mark, I would consider my next replacement phone being a Fairphone, although the lack of GrapheneOS support is kind of a deal-breaker for any phone purchase for me right now.

Even if you buy a phone that isn’t a pixel, then you just end up giving money to a different privacy-invasive corporation that will continue to partner with Google for search deals and surveillance advertising.

Pixels have wide aftermarket repair parts available, relatively reasonable pricing, and the largest support from custom roms since they all test on Pixels as a standard device. (same with app developers)

Pixels often have longer update periods than other brands, and many custom roms provide extended security updates on top of that.

Android development is guaranteed to continue supporting at least the Pixel phones over all others, it’ll be easier to repair down the line, and the money Google makes from the sale is nothing compared to the money they’ll lose by having less power to surveil you.

And as much as I like Fairphone, the specs just aren’t worth the cost currently, although they are catching up as time goes on.

I personally use a Pixel with GrapheneOS, and it works better than any phone from Samsung I’ve owned in the past. (plus it’s usually a bit easier to unlock the bootloader)

Just make sure that, no matter what phone you buy, you don’t buy it through your carrier, as that will make your bootloader un-unlockable unless you pay off the full payment plan and have a carrier that supports unlocking the bootloader in the first place.