Danioover9000

@StarStruck The first one, although nothing stopping you from imagining another creation of the universe where it's the opposite.

Another really good video of how both sides weaponize language, such that it muddies the meanings of Nazism and Facism:

@Roy True, ir's sometimes important to preserve the definitions of words because wrong usage and meaning over time dilutes the word itself. Semantics and syntax issues over time, the phone philosophy game, lost in translation and so on. Good video that highlights this issue:

@DocWatts Another good example of a healthy conservative.

@aurum What if they did know exactly what those images were used for though? If they knew that the Dad sent them under medical confidentiality reasons, and Google knows that, does it still justify them for banning the image knowing what they were used for? This my key issue here, unless they didn't know, in which case the Dad has legal right to take Google to court. In fact, I think he has to to rectify his account, and make them apologies for their mistake. After all, the context was potential child porn why would Google willingly rectify and apologies first?

@Finax I agree, although I have very little context going into this situation regarding Google's banning of Dad sending son's penis picture to doctor. If it's under medical confidentiality, and patient to doctor relationship, then sorry Google you're in the wrong specifically for this, but in other contexts google is correct for overreaction of child nudity. I also disagree how Google may have profiled this person just from potential criminal records, that in this specific issue the police found him innocent for, so descrimination, or slander is potential lawsuit that the Dad could pursue. And shame on you all users who read my anecdote and only complaining of the cut and the nudity image. Of course I screwed up in the comparison, but ya'll stuck in the content of the comparison, but not look for the STRUCTURE of WHAT I'M SAYING, look past what I've written, see the underlying issue...also Stop bullying me in my DMs please, you know who you are, now stop. Funny then but now it's annoying.

@Epikur Really?

@aurum Forget the shitty analogy. My point, is is it justified that Google did this when it's a confidential patient-doctor relationship? Was it in the medical confidentiality context? I agree Google doing the banning is justified, but what I disagree is them not unbanning until now which is years still, and whether it's a medical confidential setting that the image was being used under.

@Swarnim Yes I know, wrong kind of anecdote to use as a comparison UWU. What I was trying say, is that it's not justified that Google keeps his account banned, but I agree it's justified when they made the ban. I'm asking if it's justified, because maybe there's medical reasons and patient-doctor relationship bet6ween his son and doctor? Do they have jurisdiction then? Also, can someone please explain the full context of this????

@Emerald Say that to YouTube, who took down a video that showed a knife wound, without any warnings or disclaimers by VICE.

@Emerald The whole point of that comparison and anecdote I was getting to, is that this can happen regardless of how innocent or secure your files are. Google was overreacting, despite their justified ban, it's not valid to me, especially the case, again from OP's post, saying that the case was closed and the guy's innocent and cleared BY LAW. I say Google overstepped, and I think they should reactivate his account with an apology, especially as is we don't know if that's a patient and doctor relationship and that his son has medical treatment, and needed contact via the internet to the doctor, grounds of doctor and patient. I don't know if Google's jurisdiction covers confidential patient and doctor stuff over the internet, assuming this is under medical confidentiality.

@abundance Occassionally, sometimes in dreams too.

@aurum I do think most average conservatives just want a normal life really, some people are built to handle only mediocre lifestyle, and are fine with the simplistic life. Not just in the USA but worldwide in many other countries, they just want a normal life. Fascists seem like to me more opportunists and are far more ethnocentric, xenophobic and racist than a healthy traditionalist/conservative.

@DocWatts Good takes. I think with issues like abortion and others it's relative to the development of that country, just like with value systems, cognitive and moral development, personality types and traits, states of being, life experiences and other lines of development in areas of life, along with ideologies indoctrinated into the psyche. Also, in most cases the problems are complex and nested to several other factors as well, causing an in context and out context survivability of the issue, such that even a perfect solution only solves half the problem. Take for instance Abortion in America, which they can think through and either oppose or support to some degree. However, if we took the American population, cut it down by roughly 25%(which is 82,975,000 out of 331.9 million, remaining 248,925,000!!!), how does this event influence other developmental factors, and the discourse of the legality of abortions? We have lost half the population! How can there be any debate or civil discourse now? It's a must that we lift condoms, contraceptives, and run programs to encourage fertility and try to increase fertility rates, otherwise we lose our position as the super power among other countries, and can't survive a prolonged warfare of attrition.

@aurum Here's another way to know if you're dealing with a true conservative vs a Fascist. The situation: You are in a room with these two people, and the table has a glass with water. Person A says "The glass is half empty, we may need to reserve the remaining water until we get a refill.". Person B says " The glass is half full of water, it's so terrible! We need a new glass, one that can be half empty and half full, full of life before it lost it's water to those greedy for it!". Guess who is who?

@DocWatts Very nice take.

Nice post, I will be integrating this into my mind.

@Emerald Well, I guess my old educated jokes are too boomer for this era, despite being a Millennial/zoomer. Time to hangout with the elderly, and tendonize my neck:

@Leo Gura @Finax @aurum Actually, I have a personal anecdote of a similar situation. I had an accident with my finger, and the skin cut on my third knuckle on a corner. Took a week and a half to heal completely, but what I could've done is contacted the NHS and my GP about this accident, and book an appointment, which is mostly what happens. Hypothetically, my GP could've asked for a photo of my injury to be sent over as well, and I use my google account to do so, and Google could've restricted my account for sharing a graphic image of an injury or something. Jesus, this could've been me as well, my account would've been banned too!!!???

@aurum Which makes this situation unfortunate and tragic, because we do want to make Google a bit more accountable for their actions, but then when they should correct a certain specific action, they don't want to because PR or other factors in or out of context. I mean, how do we solve this problem to start, when a proper, deep and broad solution, only solves half the problem? Never mind the perfect solution when our information ecology has lots of misinformation and distorted facts, even taboo topics that we'd rather not engage with fully. How do we prevent mix ups like this from happening in the future? Taking the situation, we'd say "Well, the father has letters from his hospital, by the doctor, to ask him to send a picture of his son's genitalia, for his upcoming medical examination or whatever medical procedure. So, he is justified in sending those pictures in a secure folder over to that doctor, and google should not intervene between the ongoing doctor and patient relationship.", so that's one solution, allow a stronger encryption or a special file that prevents google from interfering. Of course, this solution can backfire collectively, because now scammers and fraudsters would just make up a medical stuff and use this encryption or whatever. Tricky. So, how do we resolve this issue, in the future?

@Finax My opinion, but privacy is important is relative to other factors involved within context and outside of context. If privacy was important and over enforced over the public space, we won't have and exhibitionists and voyeurs now would we?

@Finax When I think about it, I meant it in both ways: High profile case for his 'pedophilia' of sending his son's genitalia to doctor, and high profile case for suing Google's banning of his account. It's presumptuous of me or you assuming many factors of his value system, cognitive and moral development, personality types, states of being, other lines of development in various areas of life and indoctrinations he had and other ideologies, even assuming his financial situation, but I really think he should've taken them to court and really fought back. Regardless if he lost, he'd learn from that experience, and the company thinks twice of banning account with loose justifications, like with Leo Gura.

OMG! This is a good example of an entertaining deep fake video using A.I generation:

@MsNobody A few ways to reduce, and even stop creativity, although creativity can't be 'stopped' you can suddenly reduce it such that it flows very slowly. First this one's solid: For me, if I want to reduce anything I run an NLP(neuro-linguistic programming) techniques for reframing, reducing, distorting, deleting, generalizing, or even transforming feelings of negativity, but instead change the target to the creative feeling that's overflowing. Typically abstaining from a bad habit works, and can also work for other habits. Basically stop the actions that are over generating your creativity.