I did report it. The problem is many of these arguments come clothed in the fabric of politeness.
Yup. And Beehaw is already doing the thing I predicted they’d do back during the Reddit blackouts: They allow polite genocide endorsements but warn/suspend/ban people who tell those people to fuck themselves because we’re not “being nice”. Shocked Pikachu when Beehaw ends up being no different from shit-just-works.
I was just commenting on that I don’t think that aggression against -lets call them- consevatives, neo-Nazi’s, right wingers, whatver, works or is wanted
I’ve been nice to them and trying to politely educate them for over 20 years now, since W was in office. I’ve convinced a grand total of 2, and in the meantime, 30 million worse ones have arisen.
Fuck them. I’m done assuming they only hate me because they’re uneducated. They hate me because they get off on hate, and all the education in the fucking world doesn’t matter to them. So I treat them like scum, and their arguments like jokes, because they are.
Don’t like it? Too bad. Cry more, salty.
You must not be that interested in staying in contact with your family if you’re only willing to use one, specific way to do it and simply refuse to use any other method.
I’d be furious with any company if they pulled that sort of shit with a product I owned.
On the other hand, feature parity means that the full potential of the X because everything also has to run on the S. So all the things that the X can do that the S can’t will, probably, not be used much, if at all, going forward, just to avoid this kind of hassle.
Great deal for people who bought the S, but sucks shit for people who paid a couple hundred bucks more for the X, for features that simply won’t be utilized.
How about texting? Does texting work?
Amazon has become an expensive version of Wish.com.
Maybe use “sucks”?
“Sucks” has homophobic/misogynist roots, though, and they’re much more recent than the ableist usage of “lame”. Even the 1950’s version of “sucks eggs” wasn’t actually talking about the things that come from a chicken.
Even the people who seem to be in favor of it all seem to be talking about how they’ll write going forward.
With that said, editing older works to fit different contexts isn’t new at all. I remember reading my grandmother’s collection of Reader’s Digest Condensed Books, and cable companies routinely overdub curse words in movies and cut out sex scenes. Different edits for different audiences. It’s weird (it’s not weird) how we only start getting pissy about it when it comes to editing out slurs and stuff.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing for completely banning books that use shitty stereotypes and nasty racial language. The “unabridged” versions, much like the “theatrical releases” of movies, aren’t being thrown into a giant shredder. If someone wants to read an anti-semetic rant by Dahl, it’s out there. But we’ve never once at any point in the past gave two shits about editing content to make different editions for different people, and I haven’t heard an argument about why we should care when it comes to this specific version of the practice.
If North Korea wants us to know something different, they could tell us themselves. Or, even better, let the people talk to foreign journalists without handlers and threats of repercussions.
Otherwise, we’re forced to wonder about how weird it is that it seems like every news organization in the world is dead-set on spreading lies about this one, tiny, geopolitically insignificant country (and no, being able to launch toy rockets into the ocean once every couple of years does not make them geopolitically significant). Like, why did the BBC and RFA and Reuters and the AP and Al Jazeera all get together in a dark, smoky room and cook up a conspiracy to defame North Korea, of all countries? Why not, say, Thailand, or Malaysia, or Morocco, or something?
I’m guessing they will try to solve this issue with some cheap human labour to review what is being generated.
They already do. These current "AI"s are starting to look more and more like Mechanical Turks, except with a couple hundred third-world wage-slaves inside the box.
I agree with everything you’ve said. I just have to be “that guy” over something real quick.
Jesus was either divine or was a lunatic
Lewis’s Trilemma of “liar, lunatic, or lord” has always bugged me. There are so many other options that Lewis intentionally ignored. Jesus never said he was God, to start with, so there are a variety of other possibilities in the “lord” column that are significantly less prestigious, such as prophet or teacher.
Further, the existence of Jesus as a historical figure at all is simply not subject to the same standards of rigor we subject other historical figures from other religions to (for example, Sun Tzu either didn’t exist at the time he was supposed to have existed, or he didn’t write the book he was supposed to have written). “Legend” is, however remote, a viable fourth option.
In addition, there was almost certainly more than one person with the very common name Jeshua going around preaching fringe beliefs that didn’t entirely line up with contemporary mainstream Judaism. Like how there are almost certainly a lot of journalists named Robert in New York City, but they’re not all Robert Evans, and it would be very easy, 200 years from now, for a future Tacitus to claim all the acts of all the journalists named Robert, Bob, Bobby, and Rob were performed by Robert Evans. Therefore, “conglomeration” (of multiple different religious leaders) is also entirely possible (and would explain why the timelines of the gospels don’t line up, and why there are three different versions of Jesus’s last words across the four gospels).
Finally, it’s entirely possible that the people recording Jesus’s acts and words were genuinely mistaken about some or all of what they wrote about. The oldest gospels were written down roughly just before or just after 70AD (although I found a lot of non-scholarly religious figures claiming much earlier dates, the evidence they present for this is scant and often self-referential). That’s almost or more than 40 years after he died, and as far as I know, none of the names attributed to the gospel writers are accurate (Matthew, Luke, and Mark, last time I checked, are all believed to have been written anonymously and named after Jesus’s disciples later). So our earliest accounts of Jesus come from people who may not even have ever met the man, and if they had, given the life expectancy of the era, they would have had to be quite young (a charitable estimate would allow them to be in their early 20s). We’re relying on a combination of 40-year-old memories, most likely of events from the authors’ childhoods, and oral tradition. Considering we have modern people, with internet access, who believe bonsai kittens were a real thing and Al Gore claimed he invented the internet, and those things originated only twenty years ago, it’s not absurd to suggest that writers in a more primitive society dealing with twice as much temporal distance could make mistakes, misinterpretations, or record downright falsehoods told to them by bad-faith actors.
The issue I have with Christian Deism is that I wonder why they even bother continuing to include a god in their belief system. It seems like the whole point is that the world operates as if god didn’t exist. Why keep him in the picture at all? He doesn’t affect anything. Interacting with the world “through humans” is indistinguishable from not interacting with the world at all (by every metric except who gets credit for helping the people in need).
It just feels to me like the nicotine patch of religions; one of the last steps involved in weaning oneself off of theism altogether. They can still claim the societal benefits and privilege of saying they’re Christian (and not feel like a dirty liar while they do it) without actually interfacing with a theistic philosophy.
That’s great news! Keep us posted on how things go, so those of us who are maybe-not-quite-that-discontent-yet can use you as a guinea pig. :D
when you keep banning things, those people crave it more.
Your lawyer called; he said you should stop posting your defense strategy for your upcoming CP trial to Lemmy.
RTS games are currently in a big slump (nobody’s really making them, and the player base on the ones that exist has seriously dried up) because most people only like half the game.
The people who love the micro end up going to MOBAs like League or Smite. The people who love the macro end up going to 4X/Grand Strategy like Stellaris or Crusader Kings. The market of people who equally enjoy both aspects is pretty small. Like, I’ll never buy a bag of Chex mix again, now that I know I can get a whole bag of just rye chips.
To make the scene even more anemic, the skill cap right now is so high. I know several people (including me) who tried to get into Starcraft 2, only for their first random opponent to be a person with 20,000 APM who thinks a match lasting longer than two and a half minutes is a slog. It’s not even possible to learn from your mistakes when you get stomped that hard, that fast. But the single-player part does nothing to prepare you (other than maybe letting you figure out what the buttons do), and it’s going to happen just about every time (because the only people still playing are the people who have been playing for a decade or more).