Hanlon’s does tend to break down when one of the two political parties in your country have more or less devolved into theocratic fascists, though. Especially when they’ve got their plans published online, and they’re clearly quite evil, and they’re following said plans disturbingly closely.
The problem is, a lot of the people who support these people are just… Stupid
I have known many a coworker who talked about voting for trump and every time I engage them in conversation about it I realize all their genuine beliefs are against the GOPs policies entirely. They just are scared of things they don’t understand and like them talking about how scary minorities are.
They aren’t choosing to be stupid as part of some evil plot, they’re just ignorant and don’t want to change because they don’t think they should have to.
Which is why I’m saying it isn’t malicious on their part. Calling it malicious implies that they are ignorant out of spite. There are people like that, and many people who are malicious in taking advantage of them, but my 70 year old coworker who just doesn’t understand LGBT people and hasn’t talked to enough black people in their life isn’t malicious, just purely ignorant and scared of change.
If they’ve lived SEVENTY YEARS and haven’t come to realize that black people and lgbtq+ people are JUST normal people trying to live a moderately different life…
Then yes, yes they are maliciously stupid. Ignorance eventually becomes a choice after so many oportunities have been passed up.
I’d argue Hanlon’s razor is not a very good heuristic. It ultimately presupposes the user of it is the mental superior in the situation, and does not take into account polarized and ambiguous controversies. It also encourages energy wasting by presupposing the issue lies with mental capacity or education, suggesting that you could educate your opponent out of their stance.
I’d recommend moving towards more energy-conserving practices. Rather than arguing your points directly, it’s better to first understand why the opposition would be taking their current stance and adjust your argument based on what common ground you both share.
Possibly the greatest skill is to just learn when it’s no longer worth your time to argue with them.
Your messages won’t work right in some Office365 servers that inject the “this email came from outside of your organisation” banner into the body. Oh, and people who get notifications about your email will only see the PGP header string.
Other than that, I don’t see the problem. Just make sure not to sign any emails that you don’t mind being used against you in court, because PGP accidentally makes it possible to prove your laptop was used to send your messages.
On the plus side, the 12 people you’ll ever meet that also use PGP will send you encrypted emails. Just make sure you keep those old, expired keys around, or you won’t be able to read your old emails back.
What main storyline? I jumped in late and none of it made sense. I couldn’t even figure out what order I had to play. Gameplay was great as long as it wasn’t PVP.
Yeah they made the genius decisions that new players should be dropped into whatever dlc they were Hocking right then and worse than that they removed dlc, never to be played again. They burned some hard bridges with me on that
Still the new World of Warcraft expansion. While I appreciate Blizzard slowing down the start of an expansion, so you don’t have to rush through everything to get to the endgame, this is a bit too slow for me. The next weekly reset on Wednesday can’t come soon enough, so finally the higher difficulty stuff opens up.
Ever since my father told the teen me that “based on a true story” doesn’t mean it’s a documentary I stopped watching those things altogether, since then I only engage with historical fiction if it’s so out there it’s obvious it’s not real.
Yeah, that wording is so misleading. “Inspired by real events” is the more accurate wording, but I feel like I haven’t seen anything with that in ages.
“Inspired by” is way more loose than “dramatization of historical events”. The former can be pretty much anything even loosely based on some idea, but the latter has a more strict set of rules, although still rather subjective.
Chernobyl was definitely a dramatization, not just “inspired by”. It really did tell the events much as they happened, only taking liberties in things that truly required it for the show to work as drama. Like one thing they did was replace what was a large panel of scientists with one character who made the points the panel did. Does that take away from the veracity of the events? I think not much at least.
Chernobyl still is one of the best shows I’ve ever watched. Not a documentary but it doesn’t try to be. It tries to be good historical drama and it is. Very gripping.
Some works will outright lie about it. For example, the TV show and movie Fargo specifically tell you it’s a true story, and even that names have been changed but ‘the rest has been told exactly as it happened’.
To me that’s weird. It doesn’t really add to the end result in my opinion, but would breed distrust when people discovered it was wholly fictional.
Still, even with things that are meant to be accurate portrayal of an event, it’s always good to check the facts. Hollywood just can’t help but fiddle with reality to tell a more interesting story, even when it doesn’t need it.
kbin.life
Hot