Like, I don't even understand what point you think you are making in the first part. A position being endorsed by Academia at the time, or people saying they are using science as a reason, doesn't suddenly make discriminatory or hateful behaviour not that. (Especially when we are talking about social sciences where both the basis for it at that time was shoddy as fuck and where the goals you want to implent with that knowledge obviously are highly subjective).

"Your honor I'm not going to address it because it's devastating to my case." 😆

You're a fucking child. I've made my point why your positions do nothing to assess any potential objectivity seveal times, you completely refuse to even go into that point.or acknowledge it in any way and when I say I'm not gonna engage with that any more because you don't muster any kind of response you proceed to wear that as a badge of honor. There's no point in arguing with people like you.

I think that's the issue. 100 years ago, this would have described people fighting against racism, segregation and what we would describe today as bigotry in most of the Western world.

That makes zero sense. Were the people fighting against slavery also trying to enslave the people arguing for it and deny their status as free people?

Only one of these groups was championing and enacting deeds of maximum intolerance and harm for another racial group. So the very best argument you could make here is that maybe the anti-racism people were also sometimes bigoted, depending on how they went about it. But there's definitely zero point to be made that the racists were not bigoted.

The rest I'm not going to go into. I've made the point several times that what people, scientists, me might have though during any time period has absolutely zero bearing on whether something is objectively the case or not. So I'm genuinely lost in regards to what point you're trying to make here.

And if you want a definition for objectivity just check wiki: Something is objective if it can be confirmed independent of a mind (its biases, perception, emotions, opinions, or imagination). If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true

Meriam-Webster - bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Saying black people deserve to be eslaved and murdered was bigoted 200 years ago, is bigoted now and will be bigoted in 200 years. The fact that it was once widely condoned by parts of society doesn't make it any less intolerant or hateful. And obviously it was always just parts condoning it. Black people certainly didn't think it was okay. And that's also why these "it was considered good hundreds of years ago" arguments don't even add up. Because even back then it was only considered "good" if you exclude the opinions of those who were oppressed, which obviously is an incomplete picture.

Also, just go back a couple hundred years more and suddenly even people considered "learned" would say the earth is flat. It's still objectively not. Because whether people think something is one way or another and whether that changed over time is simply no way to determine whether something is objective or not. I already made that point last post.Those things simply don't have anything to do with another, so I don't understand why you keep making the same logical mistake.

I don't understand what point you think you are making here. Me saying bigotry can be objectively indentified and is objectvely bad (although I didn't even argue for the latter part yet) isn't invalidated by pointing out society used to think (what we today identify as) bigotry was good. Because past people thinking X was good might just have been a subjective judgement, unless you can provide the reasoning people used to argue for X being good and it objectively holds up. And people subjectively deciding X is good, has asolutely zero bearing on whether X is objectively good or not. People mistakenly thinking the Earth is flat doesn't mean that we can't objectively determine that it isn't.

Bigotry, blatant bigotry especially is hardly subjective. It's more subtle forms might be harder to indentify without making some biased judgements, but that doesn’t make it inherently subjective.

The line in this instance is to not use defederation as a political tool, and that is IMO correct

That doesn't really mean anything imo. Not defederating is just as much a political decision as defederating is. There's no way around taking some sort of stance, intentional or not.

You're strawmanning so hard here, it's an actual fire hazard.

Only if you use the right apps. Lemmy itself doesn't have any instance blocking for users yet.

I don't think Lemmy proper has that feature yet, but some apps might.

Other than that you could open an account on an instance more in line with your prefered blocks or use kbin which already allows for instance blocking.

Wood dust and tannins are techno-fetishis shit? And what exactly makes you highly qualified to judge the viability of this again, Mr Big Science Man?

How about both?

will eventually select qualities to sustain survival. Commercial beekeeping does little for natural selection

I don't think we can consider this a guarantee for any species at this point. Climate change, habitat loss and pollution are way too fast-moving and hazardous factors, that natural selection is just guaranteed to be able to catch up in time.

From the twitch pages

The desktop web browser experience of twitch.tv and supporting sites, officially support the latest two versions of Google Chrome, the latest two versions of Mozilla Firefox, the most recent version of Microsoft Edge, and the most recent version of Apple Safari.

https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/supported-browsers?language=en_US

What's your browser version OP, so we can rule out whether it's just a version issue

Limiting the visibility of somebody voice is also censorship

It's not (always). Especially if the people "limiting your voice" are the ones giving you the platform to reach other people in the first place, usually out of their own pocket or thanks to donations. In the fediverse at least you can always set up your own instance.

People not wanting to engage with other people is not censorship. Nobody is entitled to someone else's attention.