Remember JD Vance said that childless individuals "should not have as much of a voice."
So the reasoning behind this is probably "childless individuals don't have to think about the future as much".
The natural extension of that reasoning is that older people should have their voting/political power diminished (since they won't be around as long)
I gotta say, a part of me sees the latter as being worth the former... I know it goes against many principles of government, etc. etc. but it certainly is tempting. Any armchair political scientists want to chime in?
Shout-out to framework laptops for repairable, upgradeable, and reusable components.
Where's rusty shackleford work?
Except that lie is often used when sharing an account.
Under this system, there is no ambiguity in terms of if it was you or your brother.
Oh we're definitely both in agreement that they're being dicks. My issue is that the original comment I replied to is essentially victim blaming folks by saying "all you need to do is not consent, boom, problem instantly solved".
Based on everyone else's input (notably OP neglected to reply), it's clear that the best you can do is not go to the venue and hope that results in systemic change.
I wouldn't bet on that solution.
Okay, so what's the instant solution here? Apparently it's as easy as not consenting.
In my experience many venues do not let you bring your own water
When you get one, look up adapters that let you connect it to refillable co2
Wait hold on, so someone buys tickets to an event, show up, and have to buy canned water.
What, in your imagination, should be the next steps so they "don't consent to being abused"?
Right??? I send strangers pictures of mine all the time!!
Single issue voters letsfuckinggoooooo
It is about not wanting to be federated with instances with transphobic admins.
I might be missing something, but I believe an admin being potentially transphobic only matters if they do not moderate transphobic content that leaks out to other instances. I don't think I've seen transphobic content leak out of programming.dev.
That said, I've read some of Adas comments on the intention behind defederation, and blahaj. What I've learned is that Blahaj wans set up as a safe space, so 0 tolerance is understandable, and is well within their rights to establish and enforce.
Coming from someone who is just looking to Lemmy as a reddit alternative, it's simultaneously cool that communities can do this, and a little unfortunate that with Lemmy being as small as it is (compared to reddit), we are defederating over single comment threads. Again, blahaj was intended to be a safe space and has no obligation to be a part of the "reddit replacement" I'm looking for, so if they deem it necessary then good on them.
As someone who only recently migrated to programing.dev, it feels like I'm building on shifting sand.
I'm just sitting here really confused at the choice to defederate based on a single chat.
Most folks at programming.dev, myself included, are there because it's related to their profession. That's what drew us there.
It baffles me to think that the entire instance has been judged and deemed unworthy because of a single comment chain that had disagreements.
You can block users you don't want to interact with. Some instances breed a potentially nasty sentiment or attitude, and when there are too many users from that instance to block, that's when I'd consider defederation. But a single conversation thread, involving a single person?
I've got no say in how another instance is ran. Just makes me a little sad about a much more fragmented future of Lemmy.
Yo did she just do that to someone lying on the ground? My ribcage hurts....
MUST BE THE LIBRUL AGENDA
Fwiw, citing c/privacy on Lemmy is very, very much also referencing a fractional percentage of society.