Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]

  • 0 Posts
  • 57 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
Cake day: July 29th, 2020
  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.nettoFediverse@lemmy.ml•You can be banned from lemmy.blahaj.zone for calling out transphobiaEnglish
    194·
    10 months ago

    No, although we are skeptical about certain claims of genocide. There’s a big difference between denying well-documented genocides like the Holocaust, vs being skeptical when a source starts making claims without evidence. Generally I like to think we do a decent job of investigating sources and considering multiple perspectives from around the world. You’re welcome to ask about any specific cases.

    I’m gonna be upfront because you seem like someone who would respect that, so here are some of our positions that might get labelled that way:

    • Many of the more egregious claims about Chinese Uighurs can be traced back to one guy, Adrian Zenz, who used some very questionable methodology to arrive at his claims. We’ll push back against any claims that rely only on his word, and some people call this genocide denial, but we don’t believe in taking dubious evidence as credible just to avoid being accused of that.

    • During the war in Ukraine, Russia has transported war orphans to families in Russia, which some people have labelled as genocide because they’ll be raised culturally Russian instead of culturally Ukrainian. I don’t think the term is appropriate, because imo getting orphans to safety is the priority over preserving culture. Opinions about the war differ, and the whole situation is very fucked, but every war produces orphans and not every war is a genocide.

    • We’re critical of Double Genocide Theory, the idea that Soviet actions in WWII constituted a genocide on the same level of the Holocaust, a theory which has been criticized by many Jewish historians as trivializing the Holocaust. That doesn’t mean Soviet actions are above criticism, but we don’t like when people equate them with the Nazis.

    I think that covers the main things people criticize us for. Like I said you’re welcome to pick our brains and judge for yourself what you think of us. We don’t have any animosity against any ethnic group and racism is not tolerated.

  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.nettoFediverse@lemmy.ml•You can be banned from lemmy.blahaj.zone for calling out transphobiaEnglish
    344·
    10 months ago

    By the way:

    A Hexbear admin also gets involved and sends a message to the mods of c/196 demanding the removal of the sub-Lemmy’s banner, because it contains “fuck tankies”, arguing that tankies is a slur.

    This is blatantly false. Our mod did not “demand” that they remove the banner, they asked politely, not expecting much to come of it, and absolutely nobody ever called “tankie” a slur. What actually happened is that after Moss posted this message to make fun of it, she used a word derived from “liberal” and “r----d,” and when someone criticized it she removed their comment, with modlog listing the reason as “imagine being this braindead.” When we pushed back on it, Ada scolded her about it but did not remove her as a mod. Since our mods and community had been making changes to better accommodate blahaj (they didn’t mention that we stayed out of their second thread once they actually requested that, or that the lemm.ee admin gave us permission to comment on their thread), we decided at that point that the effort wasn’t worth it.

    Come to Hexbear! We love our trans and neurodivergent comrades, we’re super political all the time, and we have way thicker skin trans-heart

  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.nettoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•A Judicial "Trolley Problem"English
    2·
    10 months ago

    Yeah, it is a general criticism that can apply to a lot of thought experiments. And don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the problem, it’s just that I also enjoy critiquing it.

    I believe most people’s initial response to the original problem is to pull, but far fewer people will push the fat man, and this is framed as highlighting a contradiction in people’s beliefs. In reality, it shows that if you create an unrealistic scenario, it trips up people’s intuitions. One reason people’s intuitions tell them not to push the fat man is because their moral intuition is outweighed by their physical intuition. We all know that pushing a guy off a bridge won’t actually stop a trolley (and even if it would, we can’t know that), so if we start to consider doing something like that, our brains say, “No stop it idiot don’t do that.” But it’s not telling us anything about morality, it’s just telling us “that’s not how physics works, dummy.”

    Our intuitions are grounded in a world where physical and scientific laws apply and where we can never have perfect knowledge of future events, and the further you break from that, the less useful they are. But if the idea with the trolley problem is to help us identify what (if any) consistent logical precepts we can apply that match our moral intuitions, then we need to have simple, straight-forward questions. The original trolley problem is a little contrived, but doesn’t break from reality nearly as hard as variations like the fat man. That means that the intuitive response to the original problem is more trustworthy and reliable, compared to whatever we feel about the more contrived ones.

    Imo pulling the lever is the correct answer, and whenever I see a variation that tries to contradict that, I look for ways that that variation breaks from reality in ways that would trip up my intuition. So in this case my intuition tells me not to convict, in “contradiction” of saying I’d pull the lever, but that’s because my intuition hasn’t internalized all the assumptions about magical psychic foreknowledge and stuff. When I consider the problem with all those assumptions, then I say, “Oh well in that case it’s just like the trolley problem so pull,” and in some cases that answer might make me come across as a psycho, but that’s only because the hypothetical doesn’t allow me to consider the full effects, risks, and ramifications that the action would have in the real world.

    So that’s my full solution to the problem. I studied physics in uni so sometimes I might be a bit too inclined to find a final objective answer to a problem that’s supposed to be open-ended lol

  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.nettoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•A Judicial "Trolley Problem"English
    9·
    10 months ago

    As usual with variations of the trolley problem, there’s a lot of hidden assumptions baked into the question to oversimplify a more complex question, which leads to weird results.

    For example, I’m given perfect knowledge of a lot of future events. I know that the crowd will riot if I don’t convict, and I know that any attempt made by myself or anyone else to reason with them will fail. I also know that people won’t riot over convicting an innocent person. There are all sorts of social consequences that could result from my decision, people gaining or losing faith in the system, an effect on my own career and ability to make future decisons, setting a precedent of expanding state power, the possibility that closing the case would let the actual perpetrator run free and cause more problems, etc.

    If you ask me to make all the assumptions necessary to frame in the same way as the original trolley problem, then my answer has to be the same (lose one to save five), but those assumptions cause the hypothetical to be utterly divorced from reality. The real answer is not to convict because you’re not a psychic.