I don’t really care. My dick works great, I wouldn’t do this to my kids but my parents trusted the doctor. I still love my parents anyway.
E: also, this illustrated girl looks really weird, and this is a really weird conversation. Real women do not look like this, and I wouldn’t get naked in front of a girl who looked like this. Eeesh.
The health benefits are overblown and the evidence is largely from flawed studies. While not as debilitating as clitoris circumcision, it’s still genital mutilation and it’s regularly done in the US for no good reason beyond cultural pressure.
Same. Don’t let anyone make you feel bad for not doing it. I don’t know how old your son is, but mine’s 25 and I’ve never heard any complaints. He never got an infection, and never got bullied over it.
It’s a simple procedure they can get done as an adult if they’re unhappy with their penis, and at that point it’s their choice, which imo it should be.
eta for anyone on the fence: they can always remove the foreskin if they want, but growing it back is another matter.
There’s health benefits to removing the appendix and tonsils too - so why isn’t it done wholesale on every kid born?
Because it’s fucking barbaric chopping bits of you up without necessity.
On top of that as science has progressed - guess what? They think both the tonsils and appendix have a purpose. They’re important for immunity.
But there was never a fucking doubt that the foreskin has a purpose in human beings. So the removal of it for “health benefits” really is scraping the fucking barrel.
No. It’s not done because it’s invasive surgery. Like, are you for real?
Ask anyone who had their appendix rupture if they wish it could have been removed while they were barely aware of the world and had nothing else going on in their life.
It’s a major surgery. But I’ve worked with a guy who had his removed preemptively after watching his brother’s rupture. It’s rare, though, because again, it’s major surgery to remove that ticking time bomb.
There is strong evidence that it causes long term trauma. Just because you can’t remember something doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an effect on you. They literally strap you down, rip open the skin, and chop it off without any kind of pain management.
It is absolutely insane. Go watch the procedure on YouTube or something to understand what actually happens. Then take into consideration you’re likely seeing a “best case” outcome.
Pain is only shown in the control group with zero management.
Behavioral tests were animals exclusively, with no pain management.
The fact that there are people online upset about their dicks doesn’t necessarily relate to circumcision and could be multiple factors like mate rejection, erectile disfunction, sense of lack of control in the rest of their lives.
The reasons go on and on for what could make a person blame something they perceive as outside themselves for the bad in their lives. Ex: “My dick doesn’t work not because of work stress and substance abuse! It must be because I was circumcised!”
After the 4th bit of bad science in a row, I stopped reading their article because it was only going down hill from there as more conclusions got based on the initial studies. The author also called into question the validity of the study done in Africa, but this is rebutted by the CDC last year in their open letter regarding criticism of their stance.
If you were uncircumcised now, would you choose to have it done at your current age? No. Then, why do it to a baby without their consent? It’s a bodily autonomy issue.
I chose to when I was 13 because ejaculating felt like my urethra was going to rip in half. If I somehow made it like that another thirty years I would absolutely have it done again.
Sorry that happened to you. It may have been God’s way of telling you to stop masturbating. /s All jokes aside, it should always be the individual’s choice.
I agree it should be the individuals choice and when medically necessary. Sometimes I feel the narrative swings too far the other way as there are medically necessary reasons.
For context I don’t recognize uncircumcised penises when compared to my own even as a young teen. The head of my dick extended beyond the foreskin before I was circumcised. I had three strands of skin that connected between the head and skin around top of the shaft. One of the thinner strands tore once when I got an erection. The other two were significantly larger strands and would stretch and pull the head of my dick to the side when I got an erection. That bent angle hurt like hell inside when I ejaculated and just getting a boner would hurt from the strands of connective skin.
All that to say the doctor told me I was getting a circumcision but other than those strands of skin I already appeared circumcised to my knowledge. I was left with scars on the head and shaft tissue from where they were cut off though.
My father had to have his removed for the same reason (I know this because we had a conversation when I was pregnant with my son and said I wasn’t going to have him circumcised). That can happen, and I’m sorry it happened to you.
I still didn’t have my son circumcised, and would make the same decision today because those issues are comparatively rare. It sucks a lot if you have to go through that, but preemptively removing the foreskin seems harsh considering how rare complications are.
I don’t disagree with you at all. I have two sons, first one is circumcised due to medical advice from our doctor and our second one isn’t. I try to inform myself as much as possible but ultimately depend on medical professionals that I trust to help me make the best decisions I can. I’m certain I’ll never get them all correct but I do my best to be informed. I’m fairly certain the online narrative of vitriol towards circumcising isn’t aimed at medically advised procedures but the loudest voices seem to be the most ignorant towards the realities of life’s nuances. While it is mostly black and white their is still some gray area that gets lost in what I assume is well meaning commentary.
Not a real comparison. A baby is given some sugar water and already lives in diapers. They don’t even bleed after it’s done, and you just put some jelly on the front of the diaper for the first few weeks. They experience no discernable discomfort.
An adult male has gone through puberty and has a life that doesn’t involve sleeping through 18 hours of it and getting changed every couple of hours. The risk of infection is greater because you are an adult who doesn’t get the luxury of having every single need met 24/7 and getting to rest through your entire recovery.
That’s not the criteria for making medical decisions for your child, though. You have a kid, you know this. We make decisions that might have lasting physical ramifications for them for years.
I believe in vaccines and vaccinated my kid, but if someone felt the risks of them were too high, we don’t call it child abuse. And if someone delayed vaccinations, that’s not child abuse either.
We can phrase things in extremes like abuse all day, but it doesn’t make it true. Injecting babies with modified hepatitis c in the first 12 hours of their life sounds like assaulting a child unless you know those words just mean they got a vaccine.
I think the reason people don’t give a shit about online circumcision protesting is because most of them are cringe sycophants, using the worst language possible to alter someone’s opinion on the issue.
Watch a video of a circumcision and get back to me. If it’s not necessary, it shouldn’t be done. When my son was born, circumcision shouldn’t have even been an option. The “cringe sycophants” are the religious and miseducated nurses that asked me if I wanted it done.
I’ve seen it live. No video was needed. It’s not a decision to be made in the room, though. We were asked at the 20-week appointment by our doctor. She went through the merits and downsides. She was also younger than my wife and I, so it’s not just old-school doctors who ask or think there’s merit. She didn’t push either way, though.
We weren’t asked until after birth. I was prepared and it had been discussed. But I’m sure many are unprepared. That’s why I’m advocating on here. Know before you go. Don’t look back in hindsight and think “oh well.”
Who’s more obsessed, those who leave well enough alone or those who perform drastic, unnecessary, life-altering surgery as soon as a baby enters the world?
Some people believe in doctors, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and countless other institutions, and some people don’t. You’re the latter, and the last 4 years taught me that people in your camp are wrong about too many things, but also that you need to be told you are wrong before you get emboldened by your recklessness and idiocy.
It also showed me that you’re depraved sycophants that are almost always projecting some weird perv shit.
There’s more to science literacy than you are capable of, apparently. Otherwise, you know that there’s a biological purpose foreskin serves and the choice to remove it is weighed against risk factors that are very low and able to be mitigated.
Grow up, wash your dick, and use a condom. Get a circumcision if you want when you’re an adult. It’s not that hard for the vast majority of the world and history. You aren’t “right”, you’re just an asshole. Talking about genital mutilation in terms of camps, get over yourself.
I read just fine. You just can’t accept that lots of people disagree with you. The person calling a medical procedure done in a hospital mutilation is obviously lying. You lie and exaggerate because telling the truth would mean you don’t get to look down on people from the internet.
Our bodies having parts doesn’t make them inherently useful or purposeful or superior to life without. We still have tail bones, we grow teeth that don’t fit it our mouths, babies have razor-sharp nails that they slash their faces with, and we get auto-immune diseases. Our bodies are a minefield, constantly finding new and inspired ways to die or fail in spectacular fashion.
Repeated childhood infections that can be reduced to zero are hard to measure as people whose children suffer from repeated infections arr loath to self report for risk of being investigated for negligence.
The advice to wash your dick is a sure sign that you weren’t heavily involved in raising a child. Getting them to brush their damn teeth, wash their hands, and just generally not be gross is hard enough without necessitating a genital check as well.
If that can be achieved with a common and safe procedure that has extra perks and downsides that are largely assumed instead of proven, all the better.
You think it’s really important to perform an unnecessary procedure. That’s fine for you, but it doesn’t make it necessary. It’s a cultural practice.
Circumcision isn’t mutilation in and of itself, but performing an unnecessary surgery on somebody without consent is.
The advice to wash your dick is a sure sign that you weren’t heavily involved in raising a child. Getting them to brush their damn teeth, wash their hands, and just generally not be gross is hard enough without necessitating a genital check as well.
My kids do all of those things. You’re just bad at parenting, which explains a lot, actually.
Imagine cutting off a part of your child because you aren’t capable of getting them to clean it.
Naw you just call them weirdos, reckless idiots, pervs, depraved sycophants … a piece of shit … But a quip about bad parenting got your pearls clutched. Gtfoh with that holier than thou shit.
The advice to wash your dick is a sure sign that you weren’t heavily involved in raising a child.
That’s quite an arrogant statement.
My son is 25, and happy with my decision not to have him circumcised. I know because I asked him based on this discussion.
He never once got any sort of infection, because I taught him basic hygiene.
Our bodies having parts doesn’t make them inherently useful or purposeful or superior to life without. We still have tail bones
The foreskin is not a vestigial trait. It’s a 100% relevant and useful organ today. (eta: I know about vestigial traits because I have one: Darwin’s tubercle. I’d also not have appreciated having my ears docked at birth.)
Ask anyone who has a foreskin. That’s a profoundly ignorant comparison.
we grow teeth that don’t fit it our mouths
That’s an adaptive trait that serves us quite well, because our hominid ancestors fed their young the most high-energy fruits, which also increased the risk of cavities in our young. Being able to shed and replace juvenile teeth meant we were able to commence adulthood without the risk of starving. Our wisdom teeth weren’t a problem until very, very recently, because the evolution of our bodies haven’t had time to catch up with our modern diet. That’s nothing like the foreskin, where our sexual activity has not changed in millions of years. You should learn some paleo-anthropology before making comparisons like that.
and we get auto-immune diseases.
I have very severe autoimmune disease. Many recent studies point to environmental causes, which are recent and our evolution cannot account for.
None of that has anything whatever to do with the continued and relevant importance of the foreskin to sexual pleasure.
I am a mother who decided not to circumcise my child (who is now 25 and is happy to have his foreskin), a decision I made after talking to my father who had to have his removed in his teens after developing a rare condition. I know more about this topic than many people, and certainly more than you.
The reasons this procedure is commonly done in the US are questionable at best. We have learned better, and this archaic practice should not be advocated any longer.
If you had it done to you and/or had it done to your child, I’m not here to shame you. Until recently, it’s just what we did, but going forward, we should do better for our children and our species based on what we’ve learned. And we shouldn’t be a dick when presented with information that goes against our cultural norms (pun intended).
e: link to my 4 month old comment about my vestigial trait. I had to scroll through nearly a thousand comments to find it, whew.
Removing the foreskin has real ramifications for not only looks but sexual pleasure (which, by the way, was why it was popularised by puritan Christians in the US – the original point was to stop teenage boys from masturbating by making it less pleasurable).
Cutting off the foreskin at birth takes something from a man that he can’t really restore later, whereas doing nothing gives him the bodily autonomy to make that decision later. You can always remove it if you want, but once it’s gone, you can’t just grow it back.
A baby is at your mercy and has no choice in the matter.
No, you only have a short window to make it a nothing surgery vs. a week+ recovery time.
A baby will always be at their parents’ mercy. And if a parent feels the medical benefits outweigh the risks, they get to make that choice.
Also, I don’t get why people keep bringing up Kellog and his ilk. It’s irrelevant. WHO and the CDC both cite benefits. That’s relevant enough for a person today without pretending the reasoning has to be based on old information.
Yes, I’m aware it’s a week of recovery time later. I made the decision not to circumcise my son after talking to my father who had the procedure in his teens after he developed a condition. He told me exactly what it was like. (My father is 88 and was born before circumcision was common.)
You can do almost anything to an infant and they won’t remember the trauma. Infants have been subjected to near-fatal child abuse, including having their femurs broken, and they don’t remember it. That doesn’t make it right.
Having your wisdom teeth removed takes at least a week of recovery and we do that in late teens or early twenties. There are lots of things that take a week to recover from, and having to have your foreskin removed because it’s causing issues is far, far more rare. That’s not a reason to take that choice away.
Like I said, they can always have that procedure later if they want to, but once it’s done, that choice is basically gone.
Also like I said, I’m not trying to make people feel bad for having done it when we didn’t really know better. I’m not shaming anyone. It’s just what we did until recently. Going forward, though, it’s not justified and we shouldn’t be advocating for it now that we know better.
eta: and Kellogg isn’t irrelevant. That’s exactly why the practice has been embedded in American culture, so when we’re talking about why we do it, he’s extremely relevant.
It is as safe as any similar procedure, and comes with inherent risk. There’s a reason people talk about “botched circumcisions” which do indeed happen.
The health benefits aren’t even a full percentage point difference. We are talking minuscule differences, and most of it is based on bad science. How can I know this? The studies were often done on grown adults, in third world countries. Disease is already rampant there, and considering rape is so prevalent in many of the areas that anti-rape condoms were created and distributed, there are no social barriers in place to prevent the spread of disease. And finally, they tested to see if there was disease spread almost immediately after the procedure had fully healed. Meaning the men who didn’t get circumcised had been fucking around for a much, much longer time than the circumcised men.
And FGM is a pretty good allegory. We are talking about Male Genital Mutilation, why wouldn’t Female Genital Mutilation be similar? Because it’s normalized in some first world countries? You’re removing double the nerve endings when you remove foreskin vs destroy the clit, I’d say they line up close enough.
Look at it this way, we all agree declawing cats is super safe and has health benefits. But it’s being outlawed all over the place because it’s barbaric. But we still cut baby dicks. It’s pretty fucked up.
I don’t hate the doctor either. It was a long time ago, and intent matters. I don’t think the doctor wanted to hurt me, they likely bought into the studies and groupthink that were prevalent at the time.
The result is unfortunate, but it happened, and we all strive to do better with our own kids, especially now that we have things like the internet.
No you’re getting it wrong: you LOSE sensitivity because the head of your penis is getting direct stimulation all the time. Because of the resultant loss of sensitivity the expectation would be that you would take longer to finish.
But sex is a complex thing that involves a lot more than just the physical stimulation, so it’s not 1:1 with regards to speed. It IS howeve impactful for the pleasure of the person with the penis. It’s more intense and pleasurable for people that aren’t circumcised. Sex is obviously still great even if you are circumcised but it’s a little like being colorblind if you were circumcised at birth: you don’t really know what you’re missing so it’s kind of ok and not really bothersome for the majority.
Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent)
Which, particularly back in the 60s-90s period, was a bfd given the stigma around contraception and other genital protection measures. Significantly less so now when condoms are so readily available. But even then…
It’s a non-issue but people have to be mad for something I guess (because there’s no other big reasons to be mad/s).
It does feel like people are looking for something to fixate on as a rabble-rousing issue that’s a-political-ish. But the loudest anti-circumcision advocates tend to have truly awful surrounding politics. It feels like a… trojan issue.
But the loudest anti-circumcision advocates tend to have truly awful surrounding politics.
Maybe in the US? But Europeans reading about circumcision just find you all a bit weird for the practice and will comment accordingly that they think it’s barbaric and/or weird.
There is indeed an upside, though in my opinion, it does not justify the amputation of healthy, functional tissue in infants who clearly cannot consent to it and condoms are readily available even for these with allergies to natural latex rubber.
The most recent studies that I’ve read did elucidate a likely mechanism too. Making the glans an external organ, rather than be protected by the foreskin, causes the development of keratinous tissue (literally called “horny” tissue) on the glans in order to protect it from the environment, rubbing against clothing, etc. Effectively, it becomes callused. The horny layers are composed of dead and denucleated cells, creating a physical barrier that bacteria and viruses must pass in order to infect the underlying cells.
Note, though, that there were three studies conducted in Africa on the impact of male circumcision that was/is cited on HIV prevention that are so blatantly terrible tha PLoS Med and the Lancet, along with whatever IRB was in charge ought to see reparitive and punitive fines brought against them. The studies show extraordinarily poor study design, data collection, data analysis, and alarming degrees of multiple biases. The issues include, among others:
All HIV infections were assumed to be sexually transmitted and the result of heterosexual intercourse (bizarre assumptions). Conservative estimates from follow-up research puts the percentage at only 43.1% of the infection from all three studies being sexual transmission, with no extant data or tracking on partners involved. Due to not accounting for the vector of infection, it is impossible to draw the causative relationship that the researchers claim.
Improper controls: The test group were given sexual education around STI transmission and proper condom use. The control group were not.
Lead-time bias: Data collection began immediately, despite researchers instructing the study group not to have intercourse for 6-8 weeks and likely discomfort with intercourse and increased condom use occuring in some who undergo adult male circumcision up to 12 weeks following the procedure.
Attrition bias: Significantly more subjects dropped out of the studies than became infected, which was not accounted for appropriately, corrupting the dataset used for analysis.
Duration bias: The PLoS Med study was planned to take 21 months of data but only ran for 14 months. The Lancet studies (near identical to each other) lasted 24 months. Neither is sufficient to either remove tye statistical significance of the lead-time bias, nor to provide objective long-term efficacy rates for an irreversible treatment.
Expectation bias: A number of principal investigators involved in the studies had previously publicly called for mass circumcision campaigns. This alone is a major red flag that should have resulted in more critical review of the study protocols and required that they, at the very least, mak, clear disclosures of their personal biases but, to have actually trustworthy results, they should have had no role in data analysis due to clear lack of objectivity.
Referenced studies:
PLoS Med 2: e298. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298
Preconception is a powerful drug. There’s really no way you could have worded that in a way they wouldn’t get emotionally charged over. It’s just the simple fact they have a strong opposing view point so they’ll read something completely different so it makes sense with their thinking.
“I love my parents , even though they were too ignorant to think for themselves,” is how genital mutilation perpetuates. People need to be held accountable for not questioning inane rituals and traditions. Education, not mutilation.
ambivalence noun am·biv·a·lence am-ˈbi-və-lən(t)s 1 : simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (such as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action felt ambivalence toward his powerful father ambivalence toward marriage 2 a : continual fluctuation (as between one thing and its opposite) b : uncertainty as to which approach to follow ambivalence about their goals
Dude… You’re acting like you’re a wrench short of a full toolbox. Obviously meant he doesn’t care that he personally was circumcised. But he does care enough that he won’t do it to his kids.
I.E. He’s accepted the fact that what happened was in the past and he can’t change it, so no use crying about it especially when it has not effected the use of his member in any negative way. But he can change what happens in the future for his kids by not doing that to them and letting them have a choice when they’re older.
If the guy was actually ambivalent he would just go along with continuing to allow his own kids to be circumcised and/or have no opinion of the procedure. Or he would dislike the procedure but allow it to happen anyways because of tradition or something.
Stop being obtuse and ignorant. Though having said that I now feel like you’ll come at me with the mathematical definition of obtuse to try and use petty semantics to make yourself feel better
Yeah, my parents didn’t do it, and I ended up getting phimosis in my early twenties and having to get it done then.
On the one hand I do appreciate that they left it up to me, but on the other hand it was intense pain for a couple of weeks and at the time I was really wishing that they had just gotten it out of the way.
For me, it’s a wash. That may or may not be typical but it’s probably slightly better that they left me the choice? Can’t put the foreskin back on the penis I guess.
My son was born with hypospadias, so I didn’t really have a choice with him. Had to get it done or he would be peeing out of the bottom of his dick forever, which saved me and my wife a difficult decision.
All of this said though, I personally prefer being circumcised. Cleaning is way way easier, and in my own personal experience I have a lot more sensitivity when doing anything fun with my hog. My partners have also preferred it, and some of them shared with me that they had previously gotten UTIs from uncircumcised partners.
Like I said, I appreciate that my parents left it up to me, but at the same time I think the genital mutilation trope is way overblown in the majority of cases. Not all of course.
It’s certainly close enough that we shouldn’t be trying to butt into other people’s lives over it.
You should need a strong reason to have the state invade people’s lives. This ain’t it. I wouldn’t pierce my baby’s ears either, but I’m not looking to put anyone in prison over it.
The major social media platforms are programmed to simultaneously outrage you and convince you that everything you think is correct, no matter how outlandish or stupid it is.
And it works. Keeps your eyes glued to stupid ads.
For my part, I lost hope in it all when my loving, wonderful preschool teacher started posting about how unfairly Trump was being treated.
Don’t know if there’s an equivalent community on Lemmy (and honestly I’m not sure I’d want to see it either way), but /r/QanonCasualties was one of the most depressing subs you would ever see.
Just pages and pages of people either desperately trying to free their loved ones from the clutches of right wing conspiracies or people seeking support after they accept that they’re never going to deprogram their friends and family from cult-like brainwashing. Families torn apart. Marriages in shambles. Lifelong friendships broken.
An absolutely heartbreaking look into how much damage these psyops have caused to so many people.
I enjoyed Herman Cain award given out to all the deniers. Was fun, feel bad for the family members that are level headed, but not the ones got the awards.
From posting BS antivax science to the last weeks of their lives asking for thought and prayers. Lol.
Sadly, I am a victim of this same thing. I quite Facebook because family members would bring their friends to attack me on my wall because I happened to post an article they didn’t like. It was constant and daily. I eventually gave up and really don’t ever see those people anymore.
Half of them were too up their own asses to see the racism in their own families and used it as an outlet to express their “shock” so as to not face up to the fact that their upbringing needs to be critically examined instead of romanticized. These people, just like their QAnon family, are not mere victims and have their fair share of denial themselves.
My take is that this has revealed who amongst us is still ruled by their ape nature and who can notice that it’s weird to do that and try not to. Those who use only the monkey brain will fall into these traps every time. It really goes to show you just how primitive our species still is.
I actually don’t think that they are particularly stupid. I think that most people can’t overcome the urge to have and keep for themselves. It’s all very much ape behavior and it pervades all the nasty that humans are capable of.
I’m not saying that people or better or worse. I just think that some let the internal animal out and others keep it in the cage. I do, however, believe that everyone should strive for that.
They are not the same, but it is still disappointing to see lots of lazy, reactionary arguments, circle jerking, etc even if you agree with what someone is ultimately supporting.
The serious answer is to whatever your country’s internet regulation agency is (assuming your in the EU, else you’re out of luck). So for example, in France that would be the CNIL, in Germany it’s the BfDI, etc.
Just FYI Germany likes to make things more difficult, so with federation every sub-area is separated in many aspects and has own agencies for different things..
BfDI is only responsible for health and internet-provider institutions (and a few more).
Otherwise you can send it to the one where the company is located at, or always where you are located at. (they will forward it, but that can take a few months, so better to submit where it has to go).
If that’s so it’s incredibly poorly enforced to the point where complaining is unlikely to have any effect at all. Most Sites have a button that leads To a secondary menu where cookie preferences can be set. Perhaps this meets the mandate you speak of? It’s a much more common setup.
wait until you hear about renting (for those of us who really don't have a choice) - you get to be a wage slave and at the mercy of a greedy landlord..
Yeah, he cut holes in their throats so food would fall out and added additional holes along the digestive tract to collect various “gastric juices”. He also, apparently, started a business harvesting and selling said juices as a cure for indigestion… not sure how that worked, seems like it would cause more than it cured.
Jfc, to what end? All this retroactive cancelling of dead people is just diddling yourself for feel-good reasons. Get over it and be different instead of waving some flag that says you are different.
Mate learning from history’s jackasses is how we move forward as a society. Cancelling? The fuck are we cancelling? You said it yourself, fucko is dead, cancelled by life, you don’t get much more “cancelled” than that.
Move forward as a society, that’s a good one. Please do tell how you’re going to change your ways now that you know someone famous did something heinous. Fuck all is going to happen, and all of this unearthing of our evil past to better ourselves is just a form of self delusion and shock value, typical for the outrage culture of these days.
The only reaction to this new found wisdom is “and then what”? And if you took two seconds to analyze the situation instead of getting on your high horse to start a new crusade you’d probably come to the same conclusion.
Cancelling? The fuck are we cancelling?
What is being implied here is that because he did something bad, all of a sudden that has to be mentioned every time he’s brought up. It’s completely pointless and just a testimony to how insecure we are as a society. It’s like having to cover up female ankles in case we get “urges”. It’s completely ridiculous.
This is the not how we move forward as a society, in fact it is a form of regression and infantility. An inability to hold two opposing ideas in our heads and instead throwing out the baby with the bath water because everyone constantly needs to reassure the person next to them how virtuous they are.
A progressive society does not need to retroactively change history, it can accept the imperfections of the past in the knowledge that we’ve already changed.
A progressive society does not need to retroactively change history, it can accept the imperfections of the past in the knowledge that we’ve already changed.
How is pointing out the heinous shit changing history? If anything, it’s accepting the imperfections of the past and acknowledging we have changed by calling out the callousness of its prior implementation and calling out what to avoid… you are literally contradicting yourself.
We move forward as a society by recognizing that jackasses in history participated in jackassery, and by learning that some of those jackasses were framed as “good” or “leaders” or “briliant” or whatever were, in reality, pretty fucked up individuals, so that we may understand our history isn’t as flawless and unbloody as we maybe learned as children.
For instance, I was taught throughout my childhood that Henry Ford was a revolutionary leader and the inventor of the automobile. Found it a bit odd that, later on, they moved the goalpost, so that instead of having invented the automobile, he invented the assembly line! He didn’t even do that.
In fact, Henry Ford was an antisemitic jackass that took the money he made by exploiting people at the right time with the right technology, and poured it into the stupid concept of a town in South America, exploiting/displacing natives to produce rubber. Something atleast The Deuce had the sense to dismantle, but only after decades of trying and failing.
Acknowledging the darkness in our history instead of pretending it’s not there is how we admit that we’ve done some fucked up shit as a species, and how we know we still have a long way to go, how we know there is yet work to be done, how we move forward as a species.
If you’d like a TL;DR, here you go:
Everyone needs their own Messiah. But sooner or later, he’s getting nailed up, and how you deal with that is a measure of your maturity.
Agreed and well said. It reminds me of when someone lauds Thomas Jefferson as being brilliant and having great political ideas for America, but then someone clutches their pearls because he was a slave owner. Yes, being a slave owner is abhorrent, BUT it doesn’t negate the positive contributions. That isn’t how reality works. You can condemn the bad and accept the good when it comes to the effects of people and organizations and concepts.
What you’re describing is exactly the delusion I was talking about. And it’s very typical these days. People don’t want nuance, they want perfect heroes or complete villains, complete polarization, anything in-between is too complex and we’re too insecure to be associated with someone who’s done something bad. I don’t need a messiah, in fact I think that is exactly the problem that is the foundation of your line of thinking.
I have no problem admiring the good Pavlov or Ford did, and I don’t really care that they did something bad, it’s irrelevant to the discussion, really. And I can say that because I believe that recognizing their achievements says absolutely nothing about me agreeing with what they did wrong. I think that people who have to point out the worst are ultimately scared that if they don’t do that, it would say something about themselves.
I get what you’re saying, but I personally don’t find it tiring. It’s just a part of contextualizing history. I think of it as a reminder of the progress we’ve made (I hope) - that we can put an asterisk beside someone’s name in the history books.
Kind of like how it’s impossible to talk about the history of hypothermia research without acknowledging its grossly unethical source.
Well, thank you for letting us know. I read about Pavlov in textbooks in school, its better we dont whitewash his reputation! I learned the honest history in school about nazi medical experiments, I deserved to know about Pavlov too.
So you don’t care for labels, I don’t particularly either. I’m not going to criticise anyone that does find comfort and inclusivity in using them though.
I’d just let them see, but make them temporarily go blind every time they’d be about to see something they care about, or are in a dangerous situation where being able to see would be useful.
Similarly, people who can’t walk can for a week. Just enough time to get moving again and may be get to a physio therapy session. Really get the hope in full swing
I welcome this change. It makes it clear to the user in realistic terms how they want to engage with the site.
Pay up with your money
Pay up with your data
Don’t use Facebook
I despise Meta and all their products but they are entitled to charge people for them. Shit ain’t free to run, you know.
I’d much sooner they showed this banner and force people to make a decision than what they’ve been doing up until now, which is to “assume” everyone’s fine with their personal data being harvested and exploited without their knowledge or consent.
That assumes that because they’re paying they aren’t also tracking. They might not use it for ads directly but they’ll still sell it to others that will show you ads off Facebook.
Facebook’s data is way more valuable to Facebook; it doesn’t sell data to third parties. If you think they’re going to sell the non-monetisable data to third parties, you have to believe they’re willing to introduce this (which is likely to be unpopular) in apparent compliance with data protection laws, while still flagrantly violating them in secret, without any of their many employees nor any of their partners’ employees blowing the whistle (and Meta as a company leaks all the time). If they were doing that, why would they bother setting up the fake “pay to not be tracked” flow, when they could pretend to honour people’s free requests not to be tracked?
That information is not Personally Identifiable Information and so it’s out of scope of privacy protecting law like the GDPR and is probably not what anyone should be worrying about when it comes to data companies.
For those not familiar with the terminology, this means that an advertiser may receive information like, “there exists a person who is 25-30 years old, likes animals, is politically left wing, lives in Michigan” etc - they don’t get that person’s name or other details that allows the advertiser to go away and advertise to you separately. Nor does it allow the government to find out that you like animals by grabbing the traffic.
Thanks for this detail - I didn’t know it included IP address and accurate Lat/Long (though I guess only if you enable location services)
I agree that that would be very de-anonymisable and probably does fall under the remit of GDPR etc.
In the present context, I think whether or not Meta is using such granular data for real time bidding currently, they’d be arguing that all the RTB data is sufficiently covered by their privacy policy. But this new dialog says “your data won’t be used for ads” which categorically rules out this possibility. I don’t doubt that Meta could be breaking the law where they have a legal argument they can use to claim they aren’t - what I do doubt is that they are breaking the law when all it would take is a single leak to demonstrate that they are lying in their privacy policy. 4% of global revenue is not to be trifled with!
Offline activity stays offline if it never goes online. If you don’t have a facebook account, then your probably have thousands of facebook accounts. It will generate an identity for each unique advertising ID you use, and you can always generate new ones in most devices.
More like give us money, while also paying up with your data, that we won’t use for tracking, only for resell to people that will sell us back tracking details in a maybe not currently illegal way. Also we also are the “people” that will buy the info and sell back the tracking.
Fun fact: In Illinois we actually got pretty nice checks from Facebook over them violating a biometric law the state has. I believe most of us in the class action lawsuit got around $300 each.
Those holes are almost certainly made by a woodpecker. That probably isn’t the real problem though. That wood is almost guaranteed to be infested with insects.
I rebooted a woodpecker once. One started drilling a hole on my shed. There were no insects, sometimes they just obsess on something in the wood like a knot or a nail hole and just start drilling. This woodpecker kept coming back making the hole bigger and bigger. So I took a small target and stapled it to the board with the bullseye right where the hole was. The woodpecker landed and stared at it. Cocked it’s head to the left and then cocked it to the right a couple times and flew away. I removed the target but he never returned.
Talking of rocks, I remember low level scraps between youths and border guards in previous years where the Palestinian boys used slings with rocks like David and Goliath. That weapon has a very long history in the region.
Yeah, you’d have to go back to the multiple wars where the Arab nations attacked together to destroy Israel for it to be more even, right?
Which was what initially created the refugees bc they were told by those Arab nations that after Israel and the Jews are destroyed, the Arab Palestinians would be given all of Israel.
History is so inconvenient to bullshit narratives.
And don’t act like “Lil bean Israel was just minding it’s own business when all the savage Arabs attacked and they just had to steal more land”. It’s ahistorical at best and fucking racist at worst.
lemmy.world
Top