Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)AX
Posts
1
Comments
40
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • ah, yes. because respecting someone's identity and being willfully evil by refusing to are exactly the same things, yup. Brilliant deduction there, sir Watson!

    Freedom of speech my ass. You just want to be an asshole without facing the consequences.

  • Have you tried reader mode? In both firefox and chrome (i think, I haven't checked other browsers) there's a button usually in the address bar that you can click and it'll format the article into a readable page instead of a bunch of ad-riddled garbage. It works pretty well generally.

  • Yeah. You're absolutely correct in that the two parties aren't remotely equal. I guess my comment stems from the frustration I feel seeing democrats constantly trying to "take the upper road" while conservatives block anything the democrats do on principle. They'll take a thousand concessions to get bills passed and even when the democrats are in power, somehow still don't manage to enact very meaningful change.

    So when I see the democrats slip up sometimes it feels like they undo whatever little progress they managed to make with all the conservative bad faith actors.

  • Am i mistaken in believing that cloud computing naturally lends itself to only having a couple of big players in the space? The whole point of the technology is to have someone else do the hosting for you, and the people doing the hosting win out by economies of scale.

    This would be a different conversation if they found evidence in the software that it was throttling smaller competitors, but without any more information this seems like a lot of nothing?

  • I mean that's fair enough but this article is specifically talking about how conservatives specifically use these tricks in this specific scenario. Which the author implies can be generalized to how these tricks are used in in other areas of discourse.

    But let's not mince words here. The entire conservative platform is built on ignorance and misinformation. Sure, misinformation can happen in other places too but the techniques the author analyzes here are part of the standard conservative playbook.

  • Not sure if OP actually read the article but the title of it is clickbait. The author of the article is not trying to actually say that the single problem of society is single-parent families or anything like that. The article mostly goes into how conservatives will present some pretty banal data but then sneak in some normative assumptions of how things work to make a conservative conclusion. This author is illustrating this point by specifically using a book about the data of single parent homes that makes the conclusion that we need more two parent households.

    Imo was a pretty good read and probably one I'd show to someone who's a moderate or a fence sitter, but it was nothing new to me. The author pretty cleanly lays out several of the tricks conservatives like to use to make it seem like their batshit crazy and bigoted ideas aren't actually batshit crazy and bigoted.

  • As much as I wish we could take our time with developing safe and well-tested technology before commiting to more large-scale efforts, the earth is on fire and we need drastic action now. The way I see it, even if it goes bad, we're on a fast downward tumble already so how bad could it be?

  • I found this mostly to be a satiric nothingburger that doesn't make any meaningful observations at all.

    Based on the title I expected it to go a little bit deeper into how "AI" technology will destroy society if it doesn't get regulated, but instead it was just a couple of short quips about how some of the big tech companies nowadays have changed what life looks like nowadays.

    I felt like I was reading a boomer say "get off my lawn! Kids these days..." without any additional nuance or context.

  • Are there any benefits to doing this over having a dedicated server with a vpn you can connect to for outside the network?

    Because otherwise this seems like unnecessary performance overhead on a device which I'd like to squeeze as much performance out of in order to play games...

  • Don't know how to do quotes here but:

    "Any community always ends up attracting downvotes and trolls, and the conventional resources such as the suicide hotline chat are only meant to keep you talking and don't help discuss chronic problems."

    This is pretty much it right here. It boils down to qualifications, money, and the anonymous nature of the internet. It's hard to give real and useful advice to someone based off of only a couple of internet posts.

    Offline, are you gonna run into shitty therapists who deserve to have their license revoked? Yes absolutely. But the people who can help have qualifications and charge a lot of money for their time. They're not gonna come on the internet and dispense useless or generic advice to strangers. It would be a waste of everyone's time, not to mention the whole issue with separating work from life.

  • Maybe you could prod them by asking them questions designed to highlight their unconscious biases? Assuming that they're not a malicious actor of course and actually genuinely trying to learn and expand their worldview.

    I do think it's important to determine whether the person you're arguing with actually cares to grow and learn or if they're just trying to start fights with people and "win" arguments with comments that take a lot of nuance to address. In the cases where they don't care, don't waste your breath on arguing with someone who's sole purpose is to make you angry. They don't care about your nuanced answer.

    I forget how the original phrase goes, but someone once said that these people use language as a toy to play with, while the reasonable person uses it to justify their actions.

  • While I don't disagree with anything you said, I'm not sure how this answers the OP's question. At least without a little bit more elaboration on what assumptions you're making and why you're bringing up feminism specifically in this case.

    Just to take a stab here though, I think you bring up feminism because more often than not men will discredit women because "women get emotional". And since the men in this situation aren't crying from whatever casually horrendous shit is being said in the name of "debate", that to them, they think they are just and unbiased and have a more unbiased opiniom than women. Which ignores how men will often react angrily to a woman who buts into their conversation and not even realize that anger is an emotion too.

  • Well excuse me for trying to write an entertaining explanation while the earth is burning down from unchecked capitalist greed.

    I guess people just aren't allowed to have fun anymore :/

    Here's your award for being a boring and unhelpful person 🥇

  • When people are starting to starve and there are no more monkeys that can entertain the masses, the spirit of rebellion starts to rise from the ashes.

    So the established powers that be have two options: violently suppress the masses. Or acquiesce some level of control, power, or ultimately capital.

    The powers that be would rather die than give up their money. So fascism it is!

  • I appreciate your sentiment and do think that it's important to defend trans rights and not let the right split us up. But I also want to say that just because horrible shit is happening in one place doesn't mean we can't address other issues in the community while we're at it. We don't need to play suffering olympics, and if we do then we lose out on valuable intersectional experiences.

    I'm sorry that that shit happened to you. People can really suck sometimes :/

  • Let's not forget how the war on drugs was also am excuse to discriminate without being as obvious about it, since weed was disproportionately used by mexican and black communities(? The details are a bit hazy to me, truth be told).

    And since capitalism needs its blood sacrifice, and our constitution explicitly states that slave labor is still allowed for imprisoned people, we now have a permanent underclass of drug possessors to extract slave labor from. Not to mention that since we don't have any robust ways to rehabilitate former criminals into society, and most jobs categorically deny the applications of anyone who has had a felony on their record, it just funnels these people back into the industrial prison complex. I mean what else are you supposed to do when you have no money and nobody will hire you?

    Capitalism is working as intended and the criminalization of drugs is just one of those levers it can pull. It was never about the actual harmfulness of drugs, and that's why problems like this have never been fixed.

  • I appreciate seeing the wins in court and am glad that there are at least some controls in place still to reign in conservatives, but let's not forget that the R's have been trying to stack the courts in their favor whenever they can. Heck, the supreme court has already been captured by them and they've already legitimized discrimination based on "religious reasons".

    There's going to be a long battle ahead for us yet. Still, I try to appreciate the wins where we get them.