Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
view the rest of the comments
Rule of thumb- if it has to be asked….
That couldn't be further from truth. And it should be asked more often.
Is it ethical to punish people of victimless crimes?
Is it ethical for same sex couples to get married?
Is it ethical to make golfball cores from yeeted fetuses?
Now the answers to these questions should be obvious (assuming you're not an asshole on my proprietary metric), but the question still has to be asked before a change to better can be made
The point I made which you missed, is….
Betteridge's law (what you are referencing without knowing the name of) is mostly just a symptom of the increasing "anti-intellectual"/"anti-journalism" push by the various totalitarian regimes of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
In academia (which this is a lot closer to) it is wrong. And even among "pop journalism" it is really 50/50.
But people, like you, cite it as an excuse to not actually engage with the topic at hand while feeling a sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
lol… people like me…. So tell me- without sounding like a pompous ass, who are the “people like me” that you know so well to make such an assumption based on a few paragraphs of text?
Edit: Yeah… I thought so.
Well we have clearly an example here that is definitely not a straightforward no answer, so your meme is misplaced
lol… k.
What do you mean?
It’s a well known concept that almost every news headline that ask questions almost always should result in a NO answer.
No need to sound pretentious. Even now your comment isn't super clear.
Do you mean ethical questions or general questions?
Do you mean writers set up a question and it typically ends with them disagreeing?
The fact that you’re calling my explanation pretentious tells me you’re looking for an argument, so I’m going to end this here. Look it up if you need an explanation.
My comment about you sounding pretentious was in regards to
I was asking you to clarify what you were talking about and you immediately came off as demeaning and full of yourself.
I don't know if your explanation relates to ethics and the news, consent, or clickbait. Without knowing what you are talking about I couldn't even argue with you if I wanted to.
I did no such thing. It is a well known concept whether you are aware of it or not. Just as there are tons of things that are well known to many people, but not to me. This does not change the fact that it’s well known.
Instead of accusing people of being pretentious, you could instead just ask what they meant. You might get a better response as people aren’t obligated to respond in kindness to insults.
My original comment was asking "What do you mean?". I asked someone else what you could have meant and they explained it as "It means if you have to ask whether something is ethically okay than there's a strong chance it isn't". You could have just explained the expression.
Your comments in this thread like
didn't really help my opinion of your tone. People are just trying to discuss the topic.
Either way I think my thoughts are inline with @[email protected] when it comes to that and it was in a parallel thread with you so I won't bother rehashing it.
Okay.