No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Yes. Social media is literally just a fairly accurate reflection of us as a species and our civilization. If people wanted, things would be very different. People simply do not want equality or progress, they want to hate thy neighbour.
Strong disagree. Capitalists sell it to us as a mirror, but it's a distorted mirror that shows us exactly what they want us to see for whatever reason.
If they want to sell us diet pills, they will turn it into one of those amusement park mirrors that makes you look fat. If they want to overthrow democracy, they'll turn it into a mirror where everyone standing around you suddenly look suspicious and cruel. And if the Russians want to pay them to get control of what people will see in the mirror, hell - that's just freedom of expression.
Add on top that pretty much everyone on earth is staring mindlessly into the mirror for hours every day, and you got yourself what I would consider to be a problem.
Algorithms will show you something you already to some degree want to see see or nobody would visit social media. People like capitalism. They like authoritarian dictators. People like Trump, Musk etc. they do not act alone. Leftists and other assorted humanists and progressives are wildly unpopular because most of the public simply can't imagine not having the sheer bloodlust they have for thy neighbor.
If people didn't like any of this, they'd be here, not on Xitter. They know and they will make any reason up not to be here from the somewhat reasonable to the truly bizarre like pretending not to comprehend instances/servers while using discord, and that's only if they even bother to virtue signal that lack of corporate control is something they want to appear to want, like how average joe will say in a survey he isn't racist because he knows that's socially desirable, even when he of course is and similarly in reality the public love every inch of the boot.
There's no educating them, there's no misinformation that can be debunked, it's all excuses and these people reason backwards from what they want to believe and because of this and the bloodlust - the natural state of humanity is a fascist one and that's why getting someone to agree you shouldn't throw babies in the woodchipper is like pulling teeth and whenever a guy comes around saying he'll double the baby crushing machine capacity nationwide at the expense of healthcare for everyone, endless unwashed hordes of barbarians come out of the woodwork voting for him.
Believe it or not, this is not a necessity of human nature. It's just your society that's fucked up. And it's probably not even that bad if you go out and talk to people rather than judge society by the distorted reflection given on social media.
Do you look at the prisoner's dilemma and conclude that cooperation is the obvious answer?
The prisoner's dilemma depends on the fact that the two prisoners cannot cooperate. If you allow information to flow between them it's literally not a dilemma any more.
So yes.
If you mean cooperation with the police, how the hell did you derive that from my text?
That's novel information. Where did you learn that?
Two prisoners are arrested.
Both are given a choice: Rat out your buddy, and we'll let you go with one year in prison. Keep your moth shut and we'll give you four years. If you keep your moth shut and your buddy rats you out, you'll get ten. If you both rat, you both get eight years.
The dominant strategy of both prisoners is to speak: In either case, ratting on their buddy will lower their punishment. However, if both prisoners choose this strategy, they end up losing collectively: Rather than both receiving four years as they would if they both kept their moth shut, they both yet eight years because they both talk.
That's the basics of the dilemma. The years don't matter, just the ranking of preferences.
If the prisoners can communicate, they will know that the other prisoner didn't talk, and if one prisoner opens his mouth, he will know that the other prisoner will immediately do the same.
I learned the prisoner's dilemma when I studied game theory. The fact that it depends on a lack of information flowing between the prisoners and that snitching is only the dominant strategy when it's a single-round game is just parts of the assumptions of the dilemma.
They do not, as lying exists
Well, sure, it's if they are in the same room or they can hear through the walls or whatever. An actual flow of information, not just them lying to each other. I assumed that was obvious.
That's like saying poker is a solved game if you can view eachothers cards :D
I assumed it was obvious that it would remain a game where full knowledge of the game state is never granted to a participant. And the variant you proposed just added a communication channel.
That's to say: it stays realistic.
Yeah, when I stated that it literally wouldn't be a dilemma any more it's because having the prisoners sitting in the same interrogation room would destroy it, the same way playing poker with your cards backwards would destroy the game to the point where it cannot really be considered poker any more.
Wasn't making a smarter point than that. :)
I should also add that the prisoner's dilemma is only a dilemma when it is played in only one round. Once it becomes a game of several rounds cooperation arises as the dominant strategy.
Then again, I'm not sure how the prisoner's dilemma is relevant here in the first place, I just thought it was a funny point to make.
There is no fixed solution for the repeated case:
(1)
Those quotes are saying the same thing: no dominating strategy emerges. Neither full defection, nor full cooperation. It oscillates.
I guess there's a reason people argued about this dilemma for so long in the literature. :)
I talk to people every day. Statistically, they'd vote to take my rights away so I keep my wits about me though and thank god each day we don't live in an actual democracy lest minority blood will run in the streets.
If there's anything I can agree with rightoids on, it's that the average person should have absolutely no say in anything that happens to them and god forbid anyone else, all I want is a woke dictatorship at this point where the masses are very openly and directly brainwashed unto humanist ideals by elites who know what's good for them, except these elites should be ethical scientists, "woke moralists", other experts and humanists and not a handful of ultra-wealthy morons.
Social media is just a canvas for the average joe to show his true colours. I for one don't like what I see, but I don't blame the canvas for the paint our species chose.
Yeah, I'm not going to make the argument that people are fundamentally good either, and they are shaped by the media landscape they consume.
I live in a country where trans rights are not really questioned, and where I am feeling confident that they won't be. Of course it still has ways to go and there are bad people, but trans rights have not become effectively politicized and it's just not a point of contention.
It's no fundamental rule of society that we have to go around hating each other. It's a construct. That doesn't mean it's not the case where you live, but it's something that can be changed.
Oh really, what country is this might I ask?
I currently live in Denmark. I have to admit I'm not following the public debate here very carefully, and there are plenty of backwards people around who will shout loudly about just about anything, but any reversal (or anything else than gradual strengthening) of trans rights would come as a huge surprise to me.
I am open for the possibility that I'm simply not following close enough. But I think the problem with trans rights is that it has become politicized, when it is really not a political issue. The fact that I have not heard about it at all in the public debate here is therefore, in my opinion, a good sign. For sure one can dig up shitty opinions if one starts looking for it, but they have not been given a defining role in the public debate as is the case in many countries.
Ultimately all trans issues stem from healthcare access which is why the right is going after that.
If given healthcare especially at the appropriate age without years and years of waiting, gatekeeping and other Kafkaesque nonsense, trans people blend into society and accommodations wouldn't even be necessary.
Women's toilets panic? - Can't do that if most trans people pass.
Women's sports panic? - Can't argue about physical advantages of male puberty if trans women don't go through it in the first place
"They're just mentally ill!" - can't argue that if trans folks are in good mental health as a result of their treatment.
"They're just faking for attention!" - can't argue that if they're not attracting attention in the first place.
"They're not real women!!!" - yeah but I can't tell them apart so...
"They're sexual deviants!" - Can't argue that if they have a well adjusted sexuality from growing up relatively more normally.
"They're delusional!" - Can't argue that if to most people they look like the sex they transitioned to.
"They're trying to control our speech with pronouns!" - Can't argue that if most people just gender them correctly because they pass.
But take that away and it'll drive trans folks insane and make some ask for accommodations from society. And that gives ammunition to the right.
Most people don't even believe in gender equality, tons of cis women don't even believe in women's right to abortions, and the number of people who think "females" are a different species is staggering. Visibility for trans folks isn't a good thing.
Just like with the gay moral panic over S&M and leather gays the very exclusion of people from society made them different enough to be a target later on.
People shmeople none of this at all relevant tbqh, people have opinions all over - the question is are they allowed to turn those opinions into policy by the elites.
Going by the Wikipedia page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Denmark
Dutch source and the translation isn't helping, so take that with a grain of salt.
Access to healthcare on paper in Denmark looks okay-ish, even puberty blockers aren't banned, but apparently in practice the wait times are awful:
No idea about this source cited: https://www.humanrights.dk/lgbt-barometer/gender-affirming-care
But if accurate, this still isn't as bad as the UK though. Wait times for SRS are 10 years+ after diagnosis, which itself is a wait that can range from 4-10 years. Assuming European salaries unfortunately I doubt Danes have many options for private unless they're well off.
That said it's not ideal
This is dated diagnostic criteria but ultimately harmless - most trans people will just say whatever gets them treatment.
This is really good.
This is pretty bad because trans folks are particularly at risk from suicidal ideation before treatment and this tends to go away after, not to mention abuse from others.
Depending on how extensively and stringently it's enforced, that would be a de-facto ban, kind of like saying that trans people can get healthcare, but not if they have a history of things they're statistically likely to have a history of.
Quick glance at the /r/Transnord subreddit seems to more or less corroborate the wait times:
https://old.reddit.com/r/transnord/comments/16v8a7a/moving_to_denmark_to_transition/
The poor hormones dosing is also not ideal but commonplace, here in the UK I frequently had to "request" (read: fight them at every opportunity and harass them daily until they gave in) the doctors to up the dose or prescribe specific meds because I knew better.
Ironically now I have the opposite issue and the dose they're giving me is far too high because they don't even seem to understand I don't have testicles anymore.
The SRS (Sex Reassignment Surgery or "lower surgery" in PC speak) age limit is very stupid, due to waiting times I had to wait till 25 and it was hellish, every minute of it was torture, it should be set at 18.
The backsliding of trans rights in Denmark from a brief skim doesn't seem to be the worst I've seen by far, still, in the 90s an average trans person in the UK had it better.
Thanks for looking into it!
I think maybe it makes sense to consider three different levels of opposition.
The first is the actively anti-human assholes. This is the direction that the US has certainly taken, that the Torys are prone to, and that trans people are at the frontlines of right now. This is where people fuelled by hate actively want to strip people of rights. As far as I'm concerned it's really the same battle be it for trans people, women, minorities, hell, even white men who are not landowners. I think the people seeking to take our rights away here won't stop before they have destroyed everything. Trans people first, the rest of us second. I think we're blessed with this group being very tiny in Denmark.
The second is just pure neglect. I'd say this is where the Torys really shine. Not giving a shit and defunding the NHS gets you to the same point eventually, but just with less opposition. A lack of education could also be put in this box. Denmark is not immune to this, but I think the current government is making an effort at least it some areas that matter to me. That said, I'm not a big fan - I certainly wouldn't vote for them if I had the right to.
Then, third, there's the lack of action. This is just thinking that the current system is good enough. Opposition to gender quotas would be a typical example from the women's struggle - for trans rights, it's access to affordable trans health care. Here one depends on the realization that in order to achieve a just society, it's not enough to simply do nothing. I think this is where the fight is mostly taking place in Denmark. It is an important fight, but it's also miles ahead of the miserable shithole of the first level I listed (aka Amercia).
Then again, that's just my attempt to make sense of it. There is overlap between the levels, it's not always clear cut, and it's easy to slide downwards. But I think it's nevertheless important to acknowledge that the fight looks very different depending on contexts.