bonifartius 𒂼𒄄 @bonifartius@social.cleverlibre.org

@selea
> DKIM is kinda worthless unless you use DMARC tbh.

why? i can just try to check spf and/or dkim, dmarc just tells me how i should handle things on _my_ system regarding mail from that domain. which feels a bit weird and superfluous. i'm not an email-pro though, so i might be missing something here :)

@selea tbh, i'm not really sure if all the "anti-spam" measures are good or not. SPF is okish, DKIM maybe although it's quite complicated. the DMARC percentage stuff looks like madness to debug if mails go missing.

furthermore those things are what google uses to press others into just moving to gmail because they have an increasingly insane (and invisible) set of rules on what is spam.

always just the fucking first lines:

> Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

never the rest

> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

judging by how intolerant and immune to reason and discussion the new "left" (for lack of a better term) is, i have the vague suspicion that exactly those who misquote him all the time are who he meant.

*opens birdsite

second or third thing i see yet another popper misquote.

@niclas at least it's not a touchscreen!

@herag that story sounds _too_ good to be true :D

@fluffy there are some videos where he speaks german, and it's quite good. e.g. https://youtu.be/m3M0bRZ-9Co?t=24

@alcade i always read the meme more like "party you are at out of chance and you know no one".
idk, i'm pretty introvert but never had to stand around in the corner if friends were there.

@alcade well, remove the "hate me" part and it's the truth. nobody gives a shit about strangers.

code of conducts are _always_ vaguely formulated because the real reason for their existence is to be used to throw people under the bus. you need enough wiggle room to be able to declare every behaviour as against the rules.

@Pat
> As I said, when somebody tries to apologize like that, you can never see into somebody’s brain to know for sure if they are consciously racist or just slow at becoming “woke”. The students should have confronted him directly and respectfully and discussed the issue.

the only thing you can hope for is a change in behaviour not in convictions.

> If he would have continued to hold the position that blackface was ok, then that’s different. That would mean he has some kind learning disability and probably shouldn’t be teaching if he can’t even learn simple things like that.

declaring people mentally ill has a long history.

@tripu

@tripu
reading your posts i had an epiphany why the woke behavior bothers me so much:
people who demand "safe environments" in turn create hostile environments for others.
@Pat