Prophasi

Software developer. Noted enemy of vinaigrette dressing wherever it is peddled.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@OGTaylorB @tracewoodgrains The logical consequence of that in our polarized society is that almost no one concedes an argument, theory, narrative, or data point that contradicts their own ideology, lest it be a wedge to exploit. It draws blood. Can't have that.

We see the disastrous results everywhere.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

Hunting for flaws in out-groups is incredibly common across the board, whether we call it bigotry or otherwise. But it's also a fallacy - begging the question - to reflexively assume any critique is bigotry.

Even if it were, it doesn't invalidate the substance or severity of the accusation; these examples seem quite plausible & eyebrow-raising such that it'd be negligent to ignore them.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@daniel_friis @dhh The American concept of gun rights is not primarily about crime, but deterrence to tyranny & rejection of the mindset that govt are our caretakers/rulers. By this logic every citizenry needs guns.

Rampant crime, esp due to a deteriorating social fabric, only reinforces it.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@elonmusk I mostly still like Amazon, but I'm not gonna turn down competition.

Otoh, I'd rather see you take on manufacturing in the US instead of retail - that's what we really need. Fully manufacturing chains and knowledge/competence here so we don't need China for basic needs.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@okaybrothre @cryptomuchwow @christopherrufo Regardless of good or bad, it means filters for everything but whites can't be excused as trying to give opportunities for minorities.

If there were one white guy left in the state they'd say he benefits from white privilege and that all other groups still need a hand up.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@jarvis_best Odd, you don't normally expect objectionable behavior from pro-Palestine activists.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@Vassiliosynx @RealTomBob @cremieuxrecueil Per Grok, this seems untrue. Why do you think that? You've found some contrary data?

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@reddit_lies It’s interesting how far these ardent fans of “democracy” will go to amplify the votes of just one side… which, of course, is not democracy at all.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

Politics is downstream of society, where Christianity held powerful sway long after 1789. I take Devon’s point to be that it squandered that by being meek, oblivious, and servile in the face of ill winds.

The many thousands-strong demonstrations of Muslims praying publicly in unison here to see the opposite extreme of how a religion can maintain its people’s resolve, without force of govt, even amidst an adversarial culture.

If Christianity cannot do that, it will lose - not only bc of population loss and weak and feckless men, but bc nature abhors a vacuum and Islam’s clear & unwavering promises will snare many of those sexless, aimless men Christianity has forgotten how to reach.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@Diocletian909 @AntiquarianMuse It wasn't anti-semitic. It's acknowledged fact that Jews are vastly overrepresented in Hollywood; Dolly figured, therefore, that her pro-Christian content was facing an uphill battle. Doesn't mean she was right, but it's a reasonable & innocuous observation of human nature.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@banwoozi @Dy_lm96 @Variety That would be disingenuous, but I didn't say it. I said exactly the opposite, that though it can still be seen other ways, that's not a strict enough bar. It still suppresses speech by closing avenues, limiting exposure, very likely causing less to be made in the first place.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@banwoozi @Dy_lm96 @Variety It is simply anti-free speech, at its core and without ambiguity, to say that because I don't like something, they should not be allowed to say it where and how they want to people who want to hear it. That tho you have no direct stake in it, it should not be allowed.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@banwoozi @Dy_lm96 @Variety I think you're reading into what I said. Rail all you want about not liking it. Don't show it in your home. Don't go see it. Get your friends to agree. But attempting to prevent people you don't know from seeing it bc YOU don't like it is a censorious attitude by definition.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@banwoozi @Dy_lm96 @Variety Sure. As I said, if you (as a theater owner) want to not carry it, don't. It's top-down worldwide campaigns to influence (or strong-arm) others to go along with your opinions that's censorious. The attitude of "no one should be allowed to see this" is the root problem.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

We'd have to look at specific cases, but there's a big distinction here. If someone fires you bc you offend them, that's fair game: they have to work directly w/ you, pay you, be represented by you, etc.

It's when third parties try to ensure *no one* hires you bc THEY don't like you - despite having no direct stake in it - that we get into censoring, deplatforming, canceling, etc.

Maybe that happened re: Kirk or Palestine, I dunno. But that's what this is.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

IMO the bar can't be that it's literally impossible to see; pressuring all theaters means a huge profit loss, maybe making such projects unviable so no one even tries & we get less such speech in any venue.

And of course if these people could extend the campaign to streaming, they would. It's the same principle - not like theaters are magic.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@banwoozi @Dy_lm96 @Variety I mention mentality bc one's for free speech or not; if society thinks some speech is so bad that we have to make it hard/impossible for OTHERS to see it vs. ignoring it ourselves, that bubbles up to institutions & law. People start self-censoring in anticipation.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@banwoozi @Dy_lm96 @Variety An offended person can opt not to watch it, or they can "launch a campaign urging cinemas worldwide not to screen it" to prevent *anyone* from watching it.

That censorious mentality is upstream of eg book burning & UK-esque social media policing, hostile to free speech.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

@MikeHawk54327 @CrimsonSpectre @Floridap8triot @EndWokeness Right, my understanding is it was just on compressed timelines (and less inspection, etc). And a much higher liability bar.

One can be for or against the vax and be rational; depends on the reasons. But the conclusion itself was used as the proxy for scientific-or-not by many.

[Prophasi @Prophasi]

No, it has its place - I'm just saying it carries more risk, officials shouldn't gloss over it, and it should be part of one's risk function.

EUA may be fine if you're at high risk of eg covid, or it could push you to a no if you're at low covid risk.

I'm really arguing for clarity & fairness here, not claiming the vax or EUA are good or bad. Too many people were labeled nonsense like "anti-science" when they were reacting rationally to a very specific product under (understandably) unusual pressure.