portofcall
Joined 8 years ago
Joined 8 years ago
Following that through, you clearly hate being backed into a corner, and don’t mind engaging in “innacuracy” when it suits you.
Yes, you’re being dishonest.
If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed.
He spelled it out in the post you’re aggressively misinterpreting and it’s decidedly not the fiction you’re peddling. So are you really losing track of what’s been said, in which case it’s time to step back, or are you being dishonest? You don’t seem like you’re losing track, so...
However it’s also true that of the small number of mentally ill people who on to harm others, people with paranoid ideation are one of the two groups who are more likely to be violent. The other group are people who are psychotic, and may harm people under the instructions of “voices” or in extreme cases, just not have any idea what they’re doing.
Again however, those “likely” groups are still seriously unlikely to be violent against anyone other than themselves, in general.
Good luck YouTube staff, hang in there.
I’d prefer crippling fines.
Still an explosion!
Which simply isn’t true. He actually said outright:
If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed.
Now, you may think that’s garbage, but you’re not free to pretend that he said completely different things he didn’t actually say. Remember how you hate inaccuracy? Do you think that what you were doing before was accurate? How about playing semantic games now with the word “state,” is that accurate?
It isn’t, it’s evasive. So, what are you evading?