Thats just it though, a lot of the time there are reasons.

A lot of those reasons aren't immediately apparent, Some of those reasons might never be understood even by the person themselves.

I also want to make clear that a "reason" isn't always an excuse it's just the preceding experiences/events that lead up to an outcome.

Someone with a non--standard set of tools for reading context has a non-standard chance of seeing and/or understanding those reasons. Because the outward facing signs of that context are geared towards a typical form of communication that is commonly less accessible by the neurodivergent.

I say "non-standard chance of understanding" on purpose, because it's not always a case of better or worse and can vary over time, with skill acquisition and learning.

There are neurodivergent people who are very attuned to specific types of tells that wouldn't typically be seen. They might not understand the relevance or context, but they can notice a difference.

There are people who acquire a learned (as opposed to natural) form of this type of assessment of others.

That skill(or skills) can be it's own set of problems, but it's possible.

I don't disagree with the post you are responding to, almost all of that is reasonable.

Your overall argument would be more convincing if it wasn't you doing the exact same thing you are complaining about.

As for specifics , the "Just a tool" argument is meh, not all tools are equal in potential benefit and harm.

Asbestos (while it is a material) was a "tool" used to insulate from heat.

Was it good at that, sure, it probably saved many lives, was it also harmful as fuck in the medium to long term, yes it was.

It can be a useful tool and also be a detriment, those things aren't mutually exclusive.

The danger of a tool can also be mitigated with adequate safeguards that come from experience gained over time.

The argument then becomes risk vs reward, which is an entirely different conversation.

It is indeed the "no ethical consumerism" argument and as I said it's an interesting conversation to have.

I wasn’t arguing against your general premise. I specifically called out the lack of flexibility in your statement and what that implied to me.

That isn’t the case for me though. It isn’t for you either. It isn’t the case for the vast majority of people.

Maybe the Inuit had to 300 years ago. You have a Walmart near you. Be real.

And this is the exact kind of privilege and/or lack of imagination I was talking about.

It wasn’t about word choice as much it as what that word choice implied.

It suggests you don't understand how limited the choices can be under poverty, or how widespread it is.

I wasn’t positing it as a gotcha, I am "being real" when i say there are very real circumstances (for a non-trivial amount of people) that don't adhere to your ideal.

Assuming Walmart was your example because it's what you know and not because America is the only place that exists, physical distance is far from the only factor.

Assuming you have a home, even if you lived next door, that's not even close to a guarantee you'd be able to afford a continuous level of food that matches your ideal and also reaches a level of healthy nutrition.

The easy example is literal starvation, where it's not possible to secure enough food of any kind, let alone the kind that adheres to your premise.

This isn't an obscure thing from 300 years ago, this is a reality, today.

I wasn’t saying you were wrong, i was saying your argument possibly comes from a position of privilege and if you think this is a 300 year ago problem, I was correct.

edit: clean up

In modern society, almost all personal choices have victims, it's all connected.

If you want to argue the degree of separation between the choice and the victim that's an interesting conversation to have.

If your personal choice has victims, claiming it’s a personal choice ceases to be a valid reasoning to do it.

If you truly believe that statement applies 100% of the time (in this context), that implies a lack of imagination, mental flexibility and a level of privilege that taints anything else you might say with the idea :

"If they can't think of a single scenario where that statement doesn't apply, how much thinking are they really putting in to the rest of what they say"

For some, eating meat is life and death, through no fault of their own.

Non standard actions in response to stressors is a known possibility with some neurodivergent diagnoses.

Calm responses to subjectively large issues or dangerous situations as well as subjectively oversized reactions to seemingly normal stimuli (sound being a common example).

If you reach 20 companies that aren't ad-centric for-profit companies you can qualify for the false equivalency pro-league.

It's up there with mental gymnastics in the bad-faith Olympics, a lofty achievement.

well. i'll give you ad-guard , canonical is also making great strides towards ad-centric so that one too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_processing_disorder

Are you sure you want to use "Publicly stated positions and intentions" as a metric to defend trump ?

i mean, you could, it just seems like you might not have thought that all the way through.

There is a privacy setting in firefox that causes this for me on most websites that require photo upload, not all sites, but consistently the same sites.

Ebay for instance, most reverse image searches etc.

in about:config - > privacy.resistFingerprinting

It might not be that setting specifically, but turning that setting to "false" does fix this for me.

There might be a more granular setting that does the same job but i don't know of it.

Not that i'm recommending turning that off, that's your call.

I've also not tried it on this site specifically.

So your baseline is whether or not something is criminal.

That's easily solved, create laws outlawing the undesirable behaviour, such as the ones in Germany regarding Nazi paraphernalia.

Or the ones defining potentially damaging behaviour as a reason for denying visa access..... give it a sec, I'm sure you'll get it.

Obligatory, countries outside of the US exist and, I imagine rather inconveniently for your argument, have their own laws.

But if your definition of the basis of democracy is freedom of speech except for when there is a law specifically preventing it then you probably have bigger concerns than weak foundations for your arguments.

If you don’t have xyz why should I vote for you?

because in an effectively two party system where neither party has xyz you should definitely vote for the party that also aren't nazi's ?

The degree of closeness to your ideal of progressive policies doesn't mean shit when the choice is nazi's vs not nazi's.

Unless you are arguing that those weren't the choices available here ?

A quick perusal of comment history makes it seem more like a "day ending in y" kind of deal