Searching We.Love.Privacy.Club

Twts matching #label
Sort by: Newest, Oldest, Most Relevant

Isode: Harrier 3.3 – New Capabilities
Harrier is our Military Messaging client. It provides a modern, secure web UI that supports SMTP, STANAG 4406 and ACP 127. Harrier allows authorised users to access role-based mailboxes and respond as a role within an organisation rather than as an individual.

![Harrier Inbox view (behind) showing Military Messaging security label and priority parameters; and Message view (in front).](https://www.isode.com/company/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Harrier-M … ⌘ Read more

⤋ Read More

Australian wines are going through a ‘golden period’ — now there’s awards to prove it
Australian wines have been labelled ‘the best in the world’ after dominating a prestigious international wine awards, taking home more ‘Best in Show’ awards than any other country ⌘ Read more

⤋ Read More
In-reply-to » @prologic hmm, dunno about the recency of that line of thought. I suspect though that given his (recent or not) history, if someone directly asked him "do you support rape" he would not say "no", he'd go on one of these rambling answers about property crime like he did in the video. Maybe I'm mind poisoned by being around academics my whole career, but that way of talking is how an academic gives you an answer they know will be unpopular. PhD = Piled Higher And Deeper, after all right? In other words, if he doesn't say "no" right away, he's saying "yes", except with so many words there's some uncertainty about whether he actually meant yes. And he damn well knows that, and that's why I give him no slack.

@prologic@twtxt.net

Let’s assume for a moment that an answer to a question would be met with so many words you don’t know what the answer was at all. Why? Why do this? Is this a stereotype of academics and philosophers? If so, it’s not a very straight-forward way of thinking, let alone answering a simple question.

Well, I can’t know what’s in these peoples’ minds and hearts. Personally I think it’s a way of dissembling, of sowing doubt, and of maintaining plausible deniability. The strategy is to persuade as many people as possible to change their minds, and then force the remaining people to accept the idea because they think too many other people believe it.

Let’s say you want, for whatever reason, to get a lot of people to accept an idea that you know most people find horrible. The last thing you should do is express the idea clearly and concisely and repeat it over and over again. All you’d accomplish is to cement people’s resistance to you, and label yourself as a person who harbors horrible ideas that they don’t like. So you can’t do that.

What do you do instead? The entire field of “rhetoric”, dating back at least to Plato and Aristotle (400 years BC), is all about this. How to persuade people to accept your idea, even when they resist it. There are way too many techniques to summarize in a twt, but it seems almost obvious that you have to use more words and to use misleading or at least embellished or warped descriptions of things, because that’s the opposite of clearly and concisely expressing yourself, which would directly lead to people rejecting your idea.

That’s how I think of it anyway.

⤋ Read More

**#newspeak

“Luxembourg and Austria, which both oppose nuclear power and have warned against labelling gas as green, said they would challenge the law in court.

“It is neither credible, ambitious nor knowledge-based, endangers our future and is more than irresponsible,”“**
#newspeak

“Luxembourg and Austria, which both oppose nuclear power and have warned against labelling gas as green, said they would challenge the law in court.

“It is neither credible, ambitious n … ⌘ Read more

⤋ Read More

First Nations chief warns MPs as Emergencies Act inquiry begins

Image

Parliamentarians convened a first-of-its-kind inquiry into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act on Monday, the same day the Assembly of First Nations national chief expressed concerns over the act’s ability to label activists as criminals. ⌘ Read more

⤋ Read More

Bad idea of the day: Batman (1968) vs Doctor Phibes: two rich geniuses who love gadgets and labelling things fight each other in an art-deco city with a comically incompetent police force

⤋ Read More