When a book becomes influential enough, someone might try to impersonate it, since publishing doesn’t follow any hard rules. For example, I was explaining to someone that, after (surprisingly not before) I got a job at my local library, I took out a communist manifesto, which I later learned was a fake, with writings in there that were not consistent with the official communist manifesto, such as a call for free love. I have also spotted a lot of fake versions of Mark Twain books come in, which has a lot of parts deleted or inserted based on the writer’s desire. On the other side of the issue, lately I’ve been watching a lot of the events unfold in the middle East and have wondered why nobody just ends violence over there for good by making fake Qurans. One or two people have hinted they’ve tried, with some altered movements centered around it (would you call this government gnosticism), but it’s not something you always hear. What’s the most severe example of a fake version of a book you’ve ever seen/encountered?
When a book becomes influential enough, someone might try to impersonate it, since publishing doesn't follow any hard rules. For example, I was explaining to someone that, after (surprisingly not before) I got a job at my local library, I took out a communist manifesto, which I later learned was a fake, with writings in there that were not consistent with the official communist manifesto, such as a call for free love. I have also spotted a lot of fake versions of Mark Twain books come in, which has a lot of parts deleted or inserted based on the writer's desire. On the other side of the issue, lately I've been watching a lot of the events unfold in the middle East and have wondered why nobody just ends violence over there for good by making fake Qurans. One or two people have hinted they've tried, with some altered movements centered around it (would you call this government gnosticism), but it's not something you always hear. What's the most severe example of a fake version of a book you've ever seen/encountered?
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
Yeah, just free love.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
A hypothetical question.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
Your friend refers to LGBTQIA as referring to “aspects of non-cisgendered life” and it makes me doubt their understanding of the community because there are plenty of cisgendered people within the community
Her comment doesn't do it justice, no. Neither does the screenshot, there was a whole conversation involved which added context to her phrasing it like that.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
Let us not forget, autism plays a role in dating too. Many people with autism have a hard time dating because, for example, they might have hyperfixations that narrow their interests to a few strong interests, or they may have trouble knowing what things to say. Some people unfortunately can be split between those whose romantic standards are too high for those with autism and people who have lower standards but who often have these lower standards because they fall in that category.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
It's not as if, when a group gets too big, it's not natural for sectarianism to develop.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
That's the argument though, they're already being pit against each other, with people already fighting over who is worthy to say "I have autism".
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 33%
A few reasons.
-
The internet is taken for granted and this would be like a social cap. In theory, something could take its place in limited form in private settings.
-
The internet travels around the world through undersea cables (long enough to encircle the Earth 180 times) which then go into servers which then go into cables which then reach your residence, and that's a lot of service strain we add onto by putting the internet wherever we can.
-
Knowledgeability isn't as appreciated as it used to be, and having a hub for it would un-devalue it.
-
It would help maintain the right flow of interaction and information and combat things like misinformation.
-
So that people don't pose a hassle to administration.
-
To bring people together.
-
Some countries want to ban it entirely, and it would serve as a good middle ground to pacify the urge to do this without eliminating the internet.
It's no different in my opinion from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
Once upon a time, I took a Communist Manifesto out of my local library, which I later discovered was a fake, and one of the tenets called for communal hooking-up.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
But where does the communal part come in? Are people sharing their clothes?
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
But does the transport cost money?
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
If I may ask, why do they require you to be a resident of your city? I work at a library and we allow universal access. We don't even ask for library cards anymore.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 33%
In such a system, people would still have their own devices that can connect wirelessly to a library, even from outside the building (people who live immediately near the library I work at get free wireless internet, at least from 10 to 8), it's only the signal that would come mainly from the library.
Another factor that comes to mind that I forgot to mention in my other replies is that the internet comes from undersea cables that are long enough to wrap around the Earth 180 times, which then enters into servers which then enters into cable lines which then reaches peoples' houses, and these are all an absolute hassle to maintain, both because of wildlife attacking them (yeah, a single fish can take out a country's internet) as well as bad actors, and on the cable side, bad weather can take them out. The service strain would be a lot less if we didn't try to put too much on our plates, allowing more maintenance to be maintained.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
That much is true, but if it's done strictly like that, it would ruin the point.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 33%
You do realize adult content can be printed or watched on TV, right?
When I was younger, I used my radio.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 50%
So my reasoning is for a few reasons. The internet is the largest source of knowledge. People use it for things such as research, homework, chatting, entertainment, expression, art, debate, and uploading content. We currently exist in a world where there are as many personal devices with internet as there are devices with clocks. For many, the internet is a form of escapism, and there's a lot of escaping going on. That I think would be a good idea to channel so, one, its usage isn't willy-nilly, two, misinformation and conflict doesn't run amuck in the digital sphere, three, it would give social incentive, and four, it would give value to knowing things (as in, before the internet, you were considered learned if you knew something, but nowadays, it's impossible for someone to know something everyone else already has the potential to know, since the knowledge is at everyone's fingertips, which isn't a bad thing on its own but takes away from any individual advantage of knowing things not easily learnable). There are places out there that want to ban the internet entirely, mostly authoritarian countries as well as some cults, and this I absolutely disagree with, especially as a librarian, and I also figure it might be a good middle ground to pacify urges to outright ban the internet, especially as society is getting numb, knowledge is taken for granted, and people are getting too carried away. It's no different from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 50%
So my reasoning is for a few reasons. The internet is the largest source of knowledge. People use it for things such as research, homework, chatting, entertainment, expression, art, debate, and uploading content. We currently exist in a world where there are as many personal devices with internet as there are devices with clocks. For many, the internet is a form of escapism, and there's a lot of escaping going on. That I think would be a good idea to channel so, one, its usage isn't willy-nilly, two, misinformation and conflict doesn't run amuck in the digital sphere, three, it would give social incentive, and four, it would give value to knowing things (as in, before the internet, you were considered learned if you knew something, but nowadays, it's impossible for someone to know something everyone else already has the potential to know, since the knowledge is at everyone's fingertips, which isn't a bad thing on its own but takes away from any individual advantage of knowing things not easily learnable). There are places out there that want to ban the internet entirely, mostly authoritarian countries as well as some cults, and this I absolutely disagree with, especially as a librarian, and I also figure it might be a good middle ground to pacify urges to outright ban the internet, especially as society is getting numb, knowledge is taken for granted, and people are getting too carried away. It's no different from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 33%
Thanks for not downvoting then.
So my reasoning is for a few reasons. The internet is the largest source of knowledge. People use it for things such as research, homework, chatting, entertainment, expression, art, debate, and uploading content. We currently exist in a world where there are as many personal devices with internet as there are devices with clocks. For many, the internet is a form of escapism, and there's a lot of escaping going on. That I think would be a good idea to channel so, one, its usage isn't willy-nilly, two, misinformation and conflict doesn't run amuck in the digital sphere, three, it would give social incentive, and four, it would give value to knowing things (as in, before the internet, you were considered learned if you knew something, but nowadays, it's impossible for someone to know something everyone else already has the potential to know, since the knowledge is at everyone's fingertips, which isn't a bad thing on its own but takes away from any individual advantage of knowing things not easily learnable). There are places out there that want to ban the internet entirely, mostly authoritarian countries as well as some cults, and this I absolutely disagree with, especially as a librarian, and I also figure it might be a good middle ground to pacify urges to outright ban the internet, especially as society is getting numb, knowledge is taken for granted, and people are getting too carried away. It's no different from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.
I was reading [an article](https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/16/style/national-book-awards-2023-ceasefire-book-bans-cec/index.html) about the efforts by people not to ban books. While I think the sentiment is good-natured, as a helper at my local library, this is actually very problematic. People donate to us all the time, as is how libraries work. Sometimes the books are unpopular, unproductive, harmful, or just low tier. I would never apply this logic to human beings, all humans have value if the system knows how to channel them correctly, but books are inanimate objects where their expected purpose is to be read (if you were to say a book is useful on the basis it could be used for something like ripping the pages out for wiping a floor for example, that would make its usefulness *as a book* cease). Often we are over capacity from the donations, so once a year we have a book sale at the church (libraries and churches getting along? Crazy, right?), but even then, a lot just isn't sold, and we're forced to either give them to another holding place or, in the worst case scenario, cremate or trash them. I am all for free speech, but freedom to produce speech is different from freedom to preserve speech, and I'm sure even the ancient Romans produced a lot of scribbly nonsense. Suppose you were in my shoes and the library could preserve anything forever but not everything forever. What criteria would you use in order to decide what media (books, movies, games, etc.) gets to stay and what has to go?
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
That's got to be the nicest looking pool gym I've ever seen.
But why have two pools?
CraigOhMyEggo 2d ago • 100%
You mean like what Peewee Herman tried to do?
Today's conventional wisdom is that both are spectrums. That means one person's experience with autism isn't another person's experience with autism, and one person's experience as a member of the LGBT can differ from another's. However, that's what the whole point of the letters in the LGBT is. You could be a lesbian, asexual, aromantic, a lesbian who is aromantic, an asexual who is trans, and so on. Someone I know (who inspired me to ask this) has said they began to question why this isn't done regarding people with autism due to constantly seeing multiple people fight over things people do due to their autism because the people in the conflict don't understand each others' experiences but continue to use the label "autism". One side would say "sorry, it's an autism habit." "I have autism too, but you don't see me doing that." "Maybe your autism isn't my autism." "No, you're just using it as a crutch." My friend responded to this by making [a prototype](https://files.catbox.moe/vfniys.png) for an autism equivalent to the LGBT system and says they no longer encourage the "umbrella term" in places like their servers because it has become a constant point of contention, with them maintaining their system is better even if it's currently faulty in some way. But what's being asked is, why isn't this how it's done mainstream? Is there some kind of benefit to using the umbrella term "autism" that makes it superior/preferred to deconstructing it? Or has society just not thought too much about it?
Today's conventional wisdom is that both are spectrums. That means one person's experience with autism isn't another person's experience with autism, and one person's experience as a member of the LGBT can differ from another's. However, that's what the whole point of the letters in the LGBT is. You could be a lesbian, asexual, aromantic, a lesbian who is aromantic, an asexual who is trans, and so on. Someone I know (who inspired me to ask this) has said they began to question why this isn't done regarding people with autism due to constantly seeing multiple people fight over things people do due to their autism because the people in the conflict don't understand each others' experiences but continue to use the label "autism". One side would say "sorry, it's an autism habit." "I have autism too, but you don't see me doing that." "Maybe your autism isn't my autism." "No, you're just using it as a crutch." My friend responded to this by making [a prototype](https://files.catbox.moe/vfniys.png) for an autism equivalent to the LGBT system and says they no longer encourage the "umbrella term" in places like their servers because it has become a constant point of contention, with them maintaining their system is better even if it's currently faulty in some way. But what's being asked is, why isn't this how it's done mainstream? Is there some kind of benefit to using the umbrella term "autism" that makes it superior/preferred to deconstructing it? Or has society just not thought too much about it?
A lot of the things we do on a daily or weekly basis have ways of doing them that can either be private or communal, some of these which we do not think to consider as having that characteristic. For example, bathing in the Roman Empire used to be communal, but then Rome fell and citizens in the splinter countries began taking baths privately. Receiving mail is another example. There are countries which don’t have mailboxes and everyone gets their mail at the post office in the PO boxes. It was the United States which pioneered the idea of the modern mail system, which is why we associate it as a private act. There are activities as well which don’t have any history as jumping between one or the other that might benefit from it, for example I think towns might benefit if internet was free and freely accessible but only at the local library. What’s a non-communal aspect of life you think should be communal?
A lot of the things we do on a daily or weekly basis have ways of doing them that can either be private or communal, some of these which we do not think to consider as having that characteristic. For example, bathing in the Roman Empire used to be communal, but then Rome fell and citizens in the splinter countries began taking baths privately. Receiving mail is another example. There are countries which don't have mailboxes and everyone gets their mail at the post office in the PO boxes. It was the United States which pioneered the idea of the modern mail system, which is why we associate it as a private act. There are activities as well which don't have any history as jumping between one or the other that might benefit from it, for example I think towns might benefit if internet was free and freely accessible but only at the local library. What's a non-communal aspect of life you think should be communal?
You might consider this a sequel to [a past question](https://lemmy.ml/post/21288810) I've had, except instead of teaching them how to be artists, it's teaching them how to be devout in whatever you follow. For the sake of respecting technicalities, the loosest definition of religion/ideology/politics will be used here, which is incidentally a definition where they have historically overlapped. I have relatives who have mental challenges, and this question is inspired by my wonder all the time as someone who has lived much of his life in a very zealous religious community who has observed local missionaries (everyone is a missionary in this small town) try to get creative trying to teach the gospel to people who couldn't comprehend how an airplane works. Some of them have taken notes from psychologists and used toys inspired by the psychologists' usage of Mr. Potato Head toys to diagnose autism (not sure if they still do that), others have simplified the gospel into some extremely simplified analogies, made to fit the language model inside these individuals' minds, which both almost makes it resemble a cargo cult at times as the method used often has them using, for example, objects and their lack of object permanence as an allegory for prophets. So on and so forth. It's both fascinating and terrifying, but it begs my question when it comes to interspecies communication which is an interesting topic. Suppose you absolutely had to do this, either for some consequentialist social reason or maybe for an experiment to see if adherence would be possible. What method would you perform?
You might consider this a sequel to [a past question](https://lemmy.ml/post/19891699) I've had, except instead of teaching them how to be artists, it's teaching them how to be devout in whatever you follow. For the sake of respecting technicalities, the loosest definition of religion/ideology/politics will be used here, which is incidentally a definition where they have historically overlapped. I have relatives who have mental challenges, and this question is inspired by my wonder all the time as someone who has lived much of his life in a very zealous religious community who has observed local missionaries (everyone is a missionary in this small town) try to get creative trying to teach the gospel to people who couldn't comprehend how an airplane works. Some of them have taken notes from psychologists and used toys inspired by the psychologists' usage of Mr. Potato Head toys to diagnose autism (not sure if they still do that), others have simplified the gospel into some extremely simplified analogies, made to fit the language model inside these individuals' minds, which both almost makes it resemble a cargo cult at times as the method used often has them using, for example, objects and their lack of object permanence as an allegory for prophets. So on and so forth. It's both fascinating and terrifying, but it begs my question when it comes to interspecies communication which is an interesting topic. Suppose you absolutely had to do this, either for some consequentialist social reason or maybe for an experiment to see if adherence would be possible. What method would you perform?
Even as someone who tends to play along with bans, this seems like a weird concept. I'm referring to those moments you walk into a club or a service one day and the people in charge say something along the lines of "you're banned from our establishment because we learned you're an artist that deals with controversial subject matter" or "we banned you because we heard that was you who engaged in those reckless activities that sent that one person to need care". We barely are able to enforce the Hague convention, so it makes me wonder what the mindset is when people try to take this on, as outside your jurisdiction, something could potentially be of any kind of context, as rules, etiquette, and protocol can differ enough between clubs and services that it's almost as if the laws of physics can sometimes seem to differ. One day, I witnessed a conversation between some rule enforcers and someone I know, and the suspicious rule enforcers asked why the individual so often likes to remain as low a profile as possible, and the individual responded "if I was as open about myself to everyone as everyone else is with each other, the amount of restrictions I'd have would quintuple due to the sheer amount of people who have grown a habit of hating me for no ethical reason whatsoever", which also drags the issue of openness into the conversation. Or... or maybe I'm wrong and/or am missing something. What's your opinion on this practice? And what stands out to you as the last or most notable time this happened?
Even as someone who tends to play along with bans, this seems like a weird concept. I'm referring to those moments you walk into a club or a service one day and the people in charge say something along the lines of "you're banned from our establishment because we learned you're an artist that deals with controversial subject matter" or "we banned you because we heard that was you who engaged in those reckless activities that sent that one person to need care". We barely are able to enforce the Hague convention, so it makes me wonder what the mindset is when people try to take this on, as outside your jurisdiction, something could potentially be of any kind of context, as rules, etiquette, and protocol can differ enough between clubs and services that it's almost as if the laws of physics can sometimes seem to differ. One day, I witnessed a conversation between some rule enforcers and someone I know, and the suspicious rule enforcers asked why the individual so often likes to remain as low a profile as possible, and the individual responded "if I was as open about myself to everyone as everyone else is with each other, the amount of restrictions I'd have would quintuple due to the sheer amount of people who have grown a habit of hating me for no ethical reason whatsoever", which also drags the issue of openness into the conversation. Or... or maybe I'm wrong and/or am missing something. What's your opinion on this practice? And what stands out to you as the last or most notable time this happened?
Was wondering this in celebration of the fact dolphins have officially been confirmed [to have their own translatable proto-language](https://www.tiktok.com/@icon6_news/video/7400717636465642784), a longtime speculation we kind of already knew [and which fulfills a friend's prophecy](https://lemmy.ml/post/16032113). It's common to train animals to perceive and perform art, and/or for them to already have a sense of what it is. Give an elephant a brush and a canvas [and they'll paint glyphs of other elephants](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foahTqz7On4), chimps [can draw avant-garde "masterpieces"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af2yvR4hVd8), and pigeons can even be trained [to recognize the difference between good and bad art](https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/science-communication/2021/04/07/pigeons-know-the-difference-between-good-and-bad-art/). Dolphins surpass all of these animals in intelligence. But there's just one problem, they live underwater. And water tends to destroy most art mediums. Paper canvases shrivel, residue washes and floats away, hammers made for sculpting tend to strike softer, sculpting ice floats, fashion requires sources of fabric you can't get underwater, you get the idea. A dolphin's life is Murphy's Law for an artist. But for an artist, if there's a will, there's a way, and humans are known to challenge what we expect to be ways in which art can be created, such as with [crop circles](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoPY19drp7M), [Nazca lines](https://www.britannica.com/place/Nazca-Lines), [shadow art](https://www.pinterest.com/shadowmatic/shadow-art/), and soap sculptures [made from microwaving soap into molds](https://happyhooligans.ca/ivory-soap-microwave-experiment/). What improvised method/means of artform would you coach dolphins to do who want to be artists if you had to do so in some way?
