Even foss is under attack. Linux (amongst other OS) are being forced to comply with integrating OS-level age verification checks, which means invading privacy and contributing to mass surveillance.
People have been arrested for developing end-to-end encryption too.
You can say that individual police members aren't more likely than mass shooters to kill people, sure.
However, it is still true that the police is that big and they still killed much more people.
What does community policing look like?
Why is the number of mass shooters and police themselves relevant here? We're talking about the deaths the respective groups caused, and you haven't provided any counter-evidence/stats for that.
Why is curbing use unideal?
makes sense.
Do you extend this reasoning to corrupt institutions? Eg: people saying, "fuck ice".
How do you respond to verbal abuse without assuming bad faith?
Further, self-control and attention span are not measures of intelligence.
You can be restrained and/or have a long attention span and still not be intelligent.
someone says “we should torture indigenous people” how can one glean that they don’t truly believe that?
It's generally safe to assume they mean it, unless proven otherwise. People make hateful and racist remarks all the time, sadly, and it's almost invariably a consistent pattern of behaviour that goes beyond plausible deniability. The line of reasoning you've provided me reads as strangely apologetic and bordering solipsistic.
I would assume it’s satire
Even if the hateful remarks are understood to be ''a joke'', I don't think that's any less damning. These are not the type of things to joke about, and most reasonable and/or decent people realize that.
It’s been my experience they eventually do. If someone is telling me I look nice and I take it as a genuine compliment, but they’re acting in bad faith, that’s going to drive them up the fucking wall that I’m so dumb that I don’t assume bad faith like they do.
Can you give me an example of something like that playing out on a serious real-life topic such as politics/race/genocide etc?
This is still a fallacious analogy because it's clearly exaggerated/fictitious and nobody argues like this. If it was instead:
A: We should torture indigenous people by killing their offspring in front of them.
B: You are acting in bad faith
Is totally acceptable - anyone arguing something like point A is most certainly not engaging in a ''good faith'' discussion, it's plain common sense that they aren't.
If you want to argue in terms of strict ''logic'', ''faith'' isn't even something that would ever ''follow'' from a statement anyway, so to say that following a statement with ''you're acting in bad faith'' is a ''non-sequitur'' is a meaningless statement. Unless you're reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ''hey everyone, I'm acting in bad faith!'' (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.
Not all GPT users are American/residing in America