Hypatia of Sva, speaker of the system of Sva, research director at the IfPP / Hypatia von Sva, Vorsteherin des Sva-Systems, Forschungsdirektorin am IfPP
of plurality/multiplicity (multiplicity studies) and b) (re-)writing philosophy from a plural perspective, as it applies to more topics generally (plural philosophy). The CfP for the first issue is open until 31. July 2026! For more info, see here: https://t.co/Qo4o1ccw2e
The Plural Institute today launches "Plurality. A journal for multiplicity studies and plural philosophy." It is the first plural-led academic journal on the phenomena of plural experience, both a) as the study of the (subjective, objective and social) reality and history >
@KeechMft only ever saw this very reductive version in the mainstream, that is filled with both the idea of the supremacy of one self and with the idea of the ultimate worthlessness of children, that is the general structure of "child care" in a society that is treating them as property.
@KeechMft I have ever heard talking about stuff like that even consider passing major life decisions past their "inner child". They just assume it's a kind of "thing" they need to take care of to not have subconscious issues or whatever. Maybe that's not true in your example, but I really>
@wir_Maskenball einschränkende und diskriminierende Akte als an einen Zustand, der einen selbst einschränkt, erinnert, finde ich ihn irreführend, um etwas zu bezeichnen, was einem mehr widerfährt als dass man es tut.
@wir_Maskenball der "Behinderung des Straßenverkehrs" etc), aber da ist ja dann meist eben etwas passives gemeint, und auch etwas, was zufällig geschieht. Insofern mir also "Beeinträchtigung" viel zur nahe an der bewussten Schädigung als am Zustand passiven Geschehens scheint, und mehr an >
@tslycha Like honestly, today I trust small sites more not to leak data, since their reputation is more on the line, and it's easier to not leak a few hundred IPs/emails/passwords rather than millions of data that gets constantly copied around "the edge". That seems much sketchier to me.
@tslycha I'm actually not sure how correct the whole insecurity of small forums etc was/is. Sure, if you wrote your custom chat client in PHP 3, then it probably had mistakes (SQLI etc), but with IRC, or things like phpbb, idk if the risks were not exaggerated to make us go to platforms..
@Finkulasa Ich denke ein Problem ist auch, dass unter dem Wort Populismus zwei verschiedene Dinge verstanden werden: Popularisierung und Demagogie. Die Aussage ist richtig was die Demagogie betrifft, aber was die Popularisierung betrifft vielleicht nicht. Ich bin mir aber auch nicht sicher.
@hvywater@cognitiveease @cyreejarelle It's not about the numbers, it's about having a way of preventing or healing LC, that's at least my view on it. Other people might have other thresholds.
@danitasteinberg (when I say nothing can be done except denial, I mean that these people think the only option I have to end up in a society where masking wouldnt be necessary anymore, would be denial. I precisely say that masking now gives me a better chance than denial to actually achieve that)
@danitasteinberg In a sense, just answering "forever" is another way of depoliticizing the issue, of acting as if nothing can be done except denial. And I think it's precisely that (false) assumption that drives people deeper into denial. To that extent, that answer could even be hurting its goal
@stevie_mat specific cause, and necessary for that reason. Obviously it has much less harmful effects here, but I still find it very annoying that they have to proclaim to like it, instead of stating to others, that it's a necessity for a time (until an actual immunization is found).
@stevie_mat Yes, and I see the same with pro-masking activists too. In countering the other side, who just says they don't want to mask anymore, by ever greater proclamations of how much they like masking, want to do it forever etc, they don't actually talk about how it is related to a >
@therapatical@Tomek_NB I think the bigger problem is that it makes it obvious that people who use it that way think children shouldn't have agency and autonomy tbh. It's basically using the absence of children's rights as a given to then criticize other things as being disproportionate in comparison.