| website | https://mikestevens.link |
HUGE NEWS! My second book ASTRONAUT II launches tomorrow on Kickstarter.
Six years in the making. Over 300 paintings. Over 20 short essays. A table of contests. Other stuff. Published by the fine folks at Paragon Books.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paragon-books/scott-listfields-astronaut-ii-art-book
Folks, friends, I am sssssoft launching a new blog about cars. It's different to other car sites, in that it's a BLOG and not a business with shareholders and all the compromises that come with that. So the content is just what I enjoy, and not what some algo says will make the most money.
I mean, I'd like money someday, I hear it's good, but the goal is to be reader funded. Like a newsletter! But it's a blog. Will probably be a newsletter too, but a blog also.
See you there? ✌️ ♥️ ✌️
I love how this looks. Just a shame it'll cost about as much as a house deposit
"‘I dropped a C-bomb into Tolstoy’: one man’s quest to translate War and Peace into ‘bogan Australian’"
"Melbourne man Ander Louis has translated hundreds of pages of the 19th century classic line by line to include Ford Falcons, wankers and drongos."
LOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL
Apple's leaders have truly lost it.
https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/05/14/critical-warning-for-external-purchases-in-app-store/
This morning is sponsored by this absolute gem of an '80s list
https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7iUEL42nXVnnHyKSjM3DED?si=PUDqwn3aRY2RV939K7oHdg&pi=KSrn0J6qRR68I
But, we vilify people for having discussions with the "right". There was a call to fediblock an entire instance because one of their moderators wrote something on an entirely different site.
If you are willing to have dinner with a Nazi, that makes you a Nazi, right? No matter what you believe or how you behave.
At the end of the day, you will be excluded for who you include, it is unavoidable. But, you might not be included for who you exclude -- but if being included is something you want, excluding "the right" people might get you there.
@BoydStephenSmithJr
Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.
1 × -1 = -1
Intolerance of intolerance is tolerance
-1 × -1 = 1
@BoydStephenSmithJr
And here we go. The part where you claim that racists are the real victims here.
What part of my previous post did you fail to grasp?
Inclusion CANNOT include those who are intolerant. If you do, you become intolerant yourself. This is not a contradiction; it is basic logic, and I explained why in the previous post that went straight over your head.
@tofugolem I'm just claiming the picture in the OP can be taken either way. Everyone wants to exclude somebody, and people that try to include everybody get excluded *because* the include everybody.
I'm saying the image is a bad post, and a ambiguous sentiment if it has any meaning at all.
I agree that we cannot give political power to the intolerant and that we should strive to remove any political power they do have.
I think that they do still deserve human rights: food, shelter, health care, etc. Tho, some people do disagree with that. I think dehumanization is never okay; it's the tool of the oppressor.
@BoydStephenSmithJr
Yes, and in so doing, you are claiming that failing to tolerate the intolerant is somehow intolerant.
That is where your argument fails.
Do you need me to explain why it fails again? I can do that if you think it will help, because you are obviously struggling with this.
Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.
Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.
Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.
Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.
@tofugolem No, I'm saying that excluding people _for whatever reason_ is _excluding people_.
You can lie to yourself and say "A is not A", but then your use of "is" or "A" (or "not") loses all useful meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#Law_of_identity
@BoydStephenSmithJr
In other words, you are in fact doing exactly what I said you were doing.
Thanks for backing me up.
If your concept of tolerance includes the intolerant, you are intolerant. Period. End of story. The logic is very clear on this, and I already covered the logic. You are just embarrassing yourself at this point.
@tofugolem @BoydStephenSmithJr i have to second this.
“We tolerate others” is not a statement, it is a rule, and by being intolerant you break that rule. Therefore, intolerant people are rule breakers and trouble makers and should be pushed out on that merit alone.
So you see, it’s something that needs to be done on the principle of moderation, not on the merits of tolerance.
@BoydStephenSmithJr @tofugolem I’m being a little glib here but I don’t mean to be antagonistic.
I’m guessing that, like me, you have something of a math background and tend to look for “edge cases” in statements and the one here seems very sweeping so you’re looking for a counter-example to “disprove” it.
However, having a preference is not that strong a statement and all the sign is saying, essentially, is “I prefer to be inclusive rather than exclusive” which isn’t vague or problematic IMO.
@mdreid @tofugolem I'm saying the choice isn't binary, and the wording on the sign implies it is. You are going to experience some of both, and picking more of one just guarantees more of the other, too.
I think that "the left" tends to exclude people that could be converted, while "the right" tends to include and convert people and then continue oppressing them. (... to the extent either side acts a monolith, which is very limited.)
I strive to be personally more inclusive than any group I associate with. But, if the group events have exclusions, I will honor and not subvert them. I recognize that some people / organizations have exclusions for safety and security reasons.
@BoydStephenSmithJr @tofugolem Language is imprecise so your interpretation could be different than mine but, personally I don’t see how the wording on the sign implies a binary.
I’d rather eat a banana than an apple but I’m happy to eat either.
@mdreid @tofugolem There, the verb is shared, so the assumption is that you will (in this case) eat something. It's also in active voice rather than passive voice, which lets you have the choice -- not whatever will be performing the verb. The original form doesn't share verb and the choices are in passive voice.
But, yes, there is some ambiguity with "rather" in English. It has many of the some uses as "or", which can mean "exactly one of these choices", can mean "at least one of these choices" (like in Logic), and often just means "make some choice (and here's some possible options)".
@BoydStephenSmithJr @tofugolem I’m not going to disagree with the points about English that you are raising but I feel like we are way down in the weeds of what (to me at least) was a fairly unproblematic and unambiguous statement about supporting inclusivity.
If we are having to litigate every word choice in the sign I think we will enter “overexplaining the joke” territory, which is never fun. So I think I’ll leave this discussion here – you are free to not agree with me. I don’t mind.
@mdreid @BoydStephenSmithJr
That's exactly the problem. It's an unambiguous statement about people who are unambiguously immoral.
Certain people are obviously going to have a problem with that.
@BoydStephenSmithJr @mdreid
I have explained to you the bad assumptions required for your bad argument to work, and you just keep barrelling ahead proving how wrong you are again and again and again.
Thank you for the entertainment.
@BoydStephenSmithJr @tofugolem
It can't, though.
We don't include people just because they exclude someone we dislike. Dictators have conflicts with each other all the time, that doesn't make them our friends. A lesson the west learned in the 1930'es, when the nazis were included because they worked against the stalinists.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend (but can still be useful if they can be encouraged to fight each other).
As for trying to include everyone, look up the nazi bar story. Including certain groups IS excluding others.
@leeloo @tofugolem People do get included because of who they exclude. Writers and speakers not infrequently have to disavow an association with a group, because that group attempted to include them in their ranks (for prestige) based on some exclusionary language in their writing/speech.
Someone choosing to stay away from your bar is not excluding them. It is them excluding you.
@BoydStephenSmithJr @tofugolem
Your example is the opposite of what you're trying to claim.
Also, nobody stayed away in the nazi bar story, that was the point.
>> We don't include people just because they exclude someone we dislike.
> People do get included because of who they exclude. Writers and speakers not infrequently have to disavow an association with a group, because that group attempted to include them in their ranks (for prestige) based on some exclusionary language in their writing/speech.
It proves exactly what I am claiming, that your assertion is wrong.
@BoydStephenSmithJr @leeloo
We've been over this.
Your argument requires an assumption that is logically incoherent.
@BoydStephenSmithJr @tofugolem
Look, it's basically the nice guy argument all over again.
My claim is that being a decent person doesn't make you entitled to a date.
You then post an example of someone who was told that if he keeps being an asshole, he is never going to get a date, arguing that somehow proves that a nice guy is entitled to a date.
@BoydStephenSmithJr I don’t understand your question here.
Why would @tofugolem “prefer to be included because of the people [they] exclude” when the image they posted and said “same” to literally says the opposite, ie, that they would prefer to be excluded for inclusion than included for exclusion.
@tofugolem THIS.
117% this.
@tofugolem This is why I like Mastadon.
Good peeps.
@punissuer
Already covered that.
Including people who exclude is not inclusive. That's not how logic works.
Scott Listfield
9to5Google.com
Tofu Golem
John Macintosh
Kristina Mason
Marco Arment
sknob
The Turtle
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
Mimu [aka Aurora 
]
Mark Reid
Bernie Disobeys Tyrants
Leeloo
Faraiwe
Ross of Ottawa
Thumptastic3
gmoke
punIssuer
fafa