cishet and still giving you critical support in your struggles against rigid gender role binarism 🫡

t-shirt for me

The rule of law in a specific geographic area in a specific period of time isn't nearly as important as the meaning conveyed which is misleading.

Rather than missing the forest for the trees, why might he push for the title of founder? Why might some discredit his efforts and tactics in assuming the founder of title in specific contexts?

He did not play a meaningful role in the beginning of the company and is not responsible for its success. Money was responsible, the two founders' expertise was responsible, that specific person is not special enough for their contribution to matter much. Anyone can supply capital especially during the inflated economic conditions (of which we are suffering the consequences of now) and during the time where EV and technology at large was developed enough to allow such developments to take place.

Wholeheartedly agree. Though I am not sure I would agree with your framing of it being 'left' or 'right'. For sure the content seems to have more vitriol and divisiveness. I would use it in the past to follow scientists and their updates about research, it was really good for that.

Now the majority of those I follow post inflammatory comments or reactions to other content and I find the content writ large has decreased. I've so far increased my RSS, IRC, and mailing list usage, but it was nice to have tweets which are character-limited. I could skim through easier without having something catch my attention.

Wow, appreciate the resources. Commenting to view this later...

This really sounds like a reformulation (with more accessible language and preferable IMO) of Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. I have it below for your convenience:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. (in note 4 to Chapter 7, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1)

Hey, are you also referring to Negative Income Tax by Friedman?

It doesn't always line up perfectly to the cardinal directions and that confuses me :/

Yeah I figure that's the case :/

I remember they used to own Lenovo. Ngl, I feel that it's thrived after it was sold, their Yoga line and novel products are very interesting.

Willing to admit my ignorance. Thanks for the info.

It's early access so I don't think it counts, but I played the demo some time ago: Gloomwood

Ah yes very fair. I did not do a close reading and missed that, I did not notice or see how careful you were with your language, your explanation is much appreciated!

They might be saying that they don't give the same weight to the kinds of information on 'the same news' perhaps because there's other stuff he's paying attention to. Idk, that sounds pretty reasonable to me. I think it's easy to say people at the top of the political pyramid don't value human lives the same as those at the base.

There is another solution. Make it so witches cannot cause harm, everyone gives a little bit to make everything work for everyone.

We already give things away: money with taxes, certain liberties, information, hours of our lives; how many of those are done with complete intentionality? i.e. could we choose to do something else? I'd rather do something I choose or want to do even if its harmful or less pleasant because it's something I am privy to instead of not.

i think the cool stuff the suffragettes did would be labeled way more negatively now. the civil disobedience was rad.

I don't think they are federated? Neither is the other big community whatever it's called.

yeah, think my response was responding to something non-existent (like i made up a take to argue against), appreciate your comment. one needs to take the complaints and grievances seriously if they wanna understand or have a meaningful affect.

thank you for your service 🫡

uhh yes actually regular support and critical i mean, you get both types!

Yo, thanks so much for the resources! I found what looks to be the relevant group for calendar extensions, one of the most recent proposals/things is representing contact data with JSON.

This is definitely something I'll be looking into and hopefully contributing to one day!!

EDIT: whoops, here's a relevant link

i'm trying to go to my desk to get started, it's just, there's all these unfinished and poor abandoned projects scattered everywhere...

i'll keep trying though!

So I actually want to engage with you. If some stuff ends up being like "collapsed" or "hidden by default" because some just had a one-off bad experience with users from a particular community, do you think you'd agree that it is an OK compromise or is that relenting too much for freedom of expression?

Would you say like in the case of your comment, where the ratio skews heavily towards negative, something like having the thread collapsed by default or like hiding the score would be a better way to facilitate productive discussion? I think it works as a temporary middle ground (say the first 24H a post is up and folk's aren't completely decided, it gives controversial ideas a fightin' chance)

oh is that not the case anymore? is that because world is the biggest instance now? might be preferable if most don't appreciate their politics. Also like, I wouldn't want server downtime or anything to effect the devwork of lemmy...

i thought it's cuz their aero industry died?

You might find Negative Income Tax proposed by Milton Friedman interesting, he certainly was no collectivist.

do you think it makes sense to distinguish between the kind of radical feminism you're talking about, and the dry academic stuff that's also called radical feminism by the people who are engaged in it at least?

it's tricky, i can't deny there aren't spaces which are predominantly women where a bunch of unfair or negative stuff about men is said.

thing is, radical, which in math is another term for getting the 'root' of something, like a square root, and also means like 'fundamental' does have more than one meaning. when you use it, that's one use of the word which makes sense, another which is the one i first learned and the places i go to use to describe themselves is rather dry academic, philosophical, and artsy (artsy in the way which is confusing as heck to me) and they are also radical.

so often i am confused because it's not as though when you use the word you're making anything up. other commenters will likely treat you like you invented that use of the word, people always police language. it'd be way nicer if we could understand each other better i really think you and i and the commenters which probably gave you a downvote all have way more in common than not.

no i don't think they were "the original", where i see it now, they are in academic institutions (like the philosophy dept at my school, a few in women's studies) and publications (here's one from radical philosophy, she wrote for the london review of books which i really like and i thought the title was interesting, i thought it was a good piece that i'll have to revisit at some point.

you'll note there isn't really any provocative language. you mentioned female dating strategy, that's not a pleasant place to be. i browsed it a bit then noped out when all the acronyms started to come out, i checked the sidebar and thought yeah this is not a place which wants me...

there was an indication 45 would be bad, during his presidency he did a bunch unexpectedly, that means my poor imagination has no clue how awful some of the stuff he implements will be

I think that's fair.

Is the presumption that any confusion from labelling them as such is actually not anywhere near the value of like pointing out the alleged truthfulness which comes from the analogy made by labelling people in Israel as such?

Sorry for the direct language I have ASD, I'm just trying to understand what people mean usually but it's been told to me that it is rude or offensive so I apologize if that is the case.

Been a while since I used lemmy. Yeah I don't remember what I meant, sorry.

I was meaning to respond but I think other's have. I have one of those 30+ min YouTube videos or similarly ridiculously long blog posts (and a longform article somewhere...) though I think you might not be interested so I'll keep it to myself unless you are interested in a good faith argument (argument, root word is the latin argumentum, to make clear; prove), I would rather not waste your time or my breath if that isn't the case.

Being intolerant does not necessarily mean complete exclusion. Like one-way federation is still allowed right? So if some folks wanna comment they can still get the same content, the folks who don't won't. I think that's a decent middle ground for the meantime.

Hm I don't understand, could you explain? I had a different experience so it's a bit difficult for me to get. My dad wasn't around until a bit later and by then I didn't respect him all that much. My mom raised me and told me to be nice with my dad and show him affection, otherwise I wouldn't have interacted with him as much. I think I've taken on characteristics from my mom as a result. What does it look like for someone to have a man or masculine kind of person around?

so yes men do get laughed at for this kinda stuff, by men and also by women. when men do it, i noticed it doesn't bother me as much truthfully.

i'll say when i'm in more women-friendly, radical feminist spaces (journals, magazines, irl events) there really isn't this negativity around. something like the scumm manifesto does say stuff that can be hurtful or seem hateful (i'd agree it is hateful; i'd also agree it's completely justified and rational given the circumstances) and honestly so much of the tension seems to me to be due to the online nature of this stuff.

are there women-only spaces where a bunch of negative things about men are said? obviously, and i can't for the life of me figure out why it's held to a different standard than other groups outside of the patriarchy being the explanation.

i think treating and seeing women as equal is accepting there are women who have awful takes. women as a group will be like many other groups, they might appear homogeneous and their's a wealth of differences between them.

i'm ok believing some men are toxic, as am i for some women, what i don't do is share that opinion with others if the circumstances aren't appropriate. i think that's where "think before you act" or "think before you talk" comes in.

i did see the low value men used; tbh i see men are trash more but that might be because of the places i stick around online

contemporary feminism (and the wave immediately before) have done a lot more for me than how men have told me I 'ought' to act. fine, I'm not as manly or a man as far as some are concerned. what is really annoying is the apathy and close-mindedness of most of these men who interacted with me negatively.

asking a few questions is enough to make them emotional (which is fine when they do it and not ok when others do it in a way unlike their own) and more intensely emotional than nearly all women i've interacted with. that too is fine, it becomes a pain when i'm taken to be some kind of enemy or other by standards it seems like they cannot apply to themselves.

i want to say they are gaslighting, only, i really don't think it's intentional. there's a genuine misunderstanding and that's annoying as heck.

I appreciated the info. I agree too! The circle v thing in your profile name is cool.

Fair assessment. It generally seems to be a way of conditioning the argument to prevent further or critical discourse. Honestly with how deprived folks in the US are (as I am in my country), I think it is a bit condescending to rain on their parade. What else would they look forward to? The widening gap in wealth inequality? The increase in infant mortality? The support of genocidal regimes? Working on the positives and what people want might be a better strategy. I will say I do appreciate your comment even if others don't think it's insightful, it made me pause and think a bit.

That said, I am glad this is implemented, and I don't have evidence (read: haven't seen anything or bothered to look too much into it) this project will fair worse than others which appeared to be 'too good to be true', baring such evidence and with the general sentiment that this makes total sense, I want to say it's fair that it would be done even if it is being done decades late.