whydudothatdrcrane

I can't help wondering what is up with all those people fighting in comments about encryption. You make the point time and again that having encrypted media is somehow suspicious. I see where you are coming from.

• There are cases where people have gotten in trouble for using TOR/Signal, because it was presented to the court that "this is what criminals use".
• There are those Wall Street companies that got in trouble for using encrypted messengers with trading partners.

We know about these, because it makes headlines when it happens.

Yet, there are people here, in any similar discussion, not just this one, that keep telling us that encryption is useless because authorities can more easily break your bones than brute force your private key, and you are going to be in trouble just for having encrypted media.

Is that so? Remember the fuss when federal regulators wanted Apple to install backdoors to encrypted i-Phones? Why so? No no, bear with me, if you people are correct, then every person with an encrypted i-Phone should be in a watchlist? What about all these Linux laptops all with LUKS on the main hard drive, flying around?

How come we don't hear about those people being prosecuted and brutalized every other day in all of these alternative media we are following?

Regarding encryption, I have a right to my fucking privacy and if you want to know what is in my hard drive, then you are the weird one. Now let's discuss criminal prosecution. If the authorities have something on you and they need whatever is in your encrypted drive to convict you, then they do not have anything on you unless they break the encryption. The more people practicing encryption the less fruitful their efforts will be. Your argument amounts to little more than the very authorities slogan "if you don't have something to hide". More people using encryption should make it sink that not only people with something to hide will use encryption, and indeed, all these everyday, non-criminal people are already using Encryption in i-Phones and Linux without having their bones broken.

Yet you keep repeating this rhetoric, which seems to have no other purpose than deter people from using encryption.

Now let's discuss brutality. If you live in a police state that can kidnap you and rough you up to forgo your protected right to privacy, then you don't have a problem with encryption, but a huge political problem. In that case encryption won't liberate you, but at the same time you have much bigger problems, and an entirely different threat model.

So the only thing you people could, in good faith, add to the discussion is "If you live in a police state, don't rely solely on encryption, and update your threat model". The other things you keep going on and on about are essentially a rebranded "if you don't have something to hide" and they only seem designed to discourage people from adopting encryption altogether, and the fact you don't let go can only mean one fucking thing.

I mean, even the struggle to self-censor crap beliefs is pathetic. Most guys don't even censor themselves or outright announce that they self-censor. Like refraining from spewing transphobia and misogyny in front of women is like refraining from farting on a date. Most women are not even that pedantic with these things. The fact that this poses a mental toil on you as if you cannot tell a radicalized incel from an average dickhead is really alarming. I hope you find peace.

Right enough, the old standard is toxic and must go. You can wear a dress, cry in public, take it up yours. You still will be a manly man.

there are legal reasons to worry

"You could go to jail for saying the wrong thing! And how you are supposed to know what is considered offensive this month? Who knew you will have to subscribe to a feminist newsletter to be a man? " Did someone get addicted to old privileged sex roles, and now they feel they will be persecuted for hating women's bodily autonomy?

That is why I say it is suspicious, and given recent UK history they just might say that students protesting TERFs are extremists and round them up.

This might also be virtue signalling so that other groups are persecuted. Several things it can be, except the one they claim it is, because if it was, the general consensus is that modern extremists target all those groups of people.

Their choice shows that they don't care that much for those other groups. Effectively, it can be understood as a pink washing move for throwing all the other classes under the bus. I hope I am wrong.

so easy to get label as misogynistic where do we call it extremism

Um, incels have long been in the spotlight as possibly violent extremists. TBF research says that a minority of them become mass shooters, but their ideology is as clearly misogynist as it gets.

over and over that 50% of the population sees them as a threat

It is so easy to pick up some minimal etiquette, which most guys use to feint decency and lead normal lives, despite being more or less misogynist on the inside. If you can hardly stick to that ridiculously low bar, then in good faith, you might need to talk to a professional?

If you spew Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson nonsense at your first encounter with a woman, then yes you are perceived as a possible threat and women are smart enough to show one the door.

It is pretty unclear what you are trying to say. If you are suggesting that this regulation (good or bad in itself) bears a relation to the mental turmoil suffered by young men, you should back it up with some evidence. This is some remote innuendo.

In reality, mental health organizations like APA recognize that young men are under lot of pressure, which leads to addiction, violence, self-harm, steroid abuse, depression, and even suicide. There are special guidelines for counseling young men, and there is active research about the root cause.

A rigid traditional understanding of masculinity is shown to be the main culprit.

Do you have anything to back up your claim that regulating misogyny somehow has an effect on young men's and boys mental well being? So far it is shown that the likes of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson cause greater harm than this ill-conceived law.

This is a story from August 2023, and was covered in many outlets (I quote here NYT for reference only)

Federal regulators continued their crackdown against employees of Wall Street firms using private messaging apps to communicate, with 11 brokerage firms and investment advisers agreeing Tuesday to pay $549 million in fines.

Wells Fargo, BNP Paribas, Société Générale and Bank of Montreal were hit with the biggest penalties by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Together, the brokerage and investment advisory arms of those four financial institutions accounted for nearly 90 percent of the fines, according to statements released by the regulators.

Original NYT

Archived version

You might have a different type of person in mind than other commenters. Most commenters had such people in mind who won't install a password manager or an ad-blocker, or won't hard reboot their Windows unless supervised. Having said that, I don't think that even if you had technical people in mind this fits the question. They tend to take substantial more effort to learn and use effectively than the scope set by the original question. I thought this question was for little things that have a quick, lasting, and substantial effect. Learning awk and sed is a different thing entirely, I think of those more as productivity tools you can invest in mastering, and pay off in the long run.

Mixed feelings about this. First things first, misogyny and online harassment in the wider "internet" is rampant, and yes I believe someone has to do sth about it. I am not sure a super-surveillance nation state expanding its definition of extremism is what I wished for though. What if it was Russia? On top of that: This coming from the highly transphobic UK rubs me the wrong way. I am not sure they will not label transgender rights activism as extremism as well, given how many outlets in the UK entertain Rowling's delusion that it is a misogynistic movement, no less while UK TERFs' litigation is piling up, accusing trans people of harassing them. I am not buying it, yet.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In many countries directly insulting someone in his face is a misdemeanor or similar level violation.

Misgendering someone is an insult like calling someone names, or bad mouthing someone. There is no fundamental right to insult other people, even when you rationalize it with beliefs that happen to be protected.

For example,

I might believe whatever I want about my neighbor, eg that he is a fascist cunt, and I am allowed even to say so in private.

But saying it to his face is like a breach of the rule of law, as is saying so to others. I might think he should be lynched daily, but saying so might well be a crime.

You might even say that ignoring him in the elevator when it is customary to greet your neighbor, although not illegal, it is considered just rude by society standards.

So at the very least we have a teacher being systematically rude to his students for religious reasons (or "Gender critical", all the same), thus making him a dick. See my recent comment on Maya Forstater for some quite similar case, only this asshole is aggravated because he is in a position to scar kids.

Even if your belief is protected like religion, or you push it to be (TERFism), you have no right to violate another person's dignity because of your beliefs.

Bigots are bitter about it, and that is why they want to destroy the constitution and the rule of law to have their way. By extension they are against some basic principles like freedom of religion (of others).

Plus, there is research that shows that respecting pronouns is a mental health protector for trans and non-binary teenagers, so this make the teacher a perpetrator of demonstrably abusive behavior towards his students. For these reasons I believe he was quite rightly discontinued, and I would believe the same if he were outright terminated.

Rowling has been silent on X since August 7, when she shared a post from researcher Maya Forstater, who was fired from her job after making anti-trans statements.

(my emphases)

I don't know where Newsweek takes its facts from but this is another lie pushed by the TERF propaganda machine. Forstater was a tax expert whose contract was not renewed after she was horrible to her trans and non-binary colleagues. (Yes the 'researcher' wording is put there on purpose, to amplify the perception that her freedom of speech was violated, or as Rowling likes to put it 'her livelihood was threatened for disagreeing with the trans lobby'.)

She then went to a labor tribunal court or sth, to claim that her belief in the "immutability and reality of sex" is a protected belief, and made a fuss about being fired for her beliefs, when in reality she was merely discontinued for being a dick to the people she worked with. Her Twitter feed was full of conflating trans people with rapists and pedophiles.

The first judge took into account her definition that requires working plumbing to name someone a woman, and consulted a biological expert, impartial to gender identity, that precluded any scientific basis to Forstater's childish views on biological sex. The judge deemed her belief is "unworthy of respect in a democratic society", but later, an appeal court said she has a right to believe that but she still cannot misgender people.

Critical legal theorists suggested that the appeal court held a very low bar as for what opinions "worthy of respect" should be, and that its ruling should be better interpreted as "marginally better than an outright nazi".

It is a red flag for both the author and the outlet that they lead with a snippet of propaganda which is as false as unsubstantiated claims that Khelif's trans or DSD. So should we conclude both toxic narratives are pushed by the same epicenters?