The ones who fucked our country don’t want to admit they were wrong.
The party that’s been in charge of our country has been dismantling and selling everything worthwhile for over a decade, and the only viable alternative party seems to be running on “we don’t want to change anything major, but at least we’re not those guys” because they’re too scared to say anything after their last leader got torn apart constantly by the right-wing press.
I’m honestly worried about what we’ve become and how everything is just getting worse here. Nobody seems to have any hope for the future anymore, there are no positive things to look forward to, just a constant spiral of rising costs and declining health and public services.
The sad truth is it will need to get much worse until conservatives will admit there is a problem and let progressives solve it.
It has always been this way. You either live in a progressive, upwardly moving state with improving quality of life or you get stuck in a conservative, stagnant or downward trending place where people are more concerned with "others" than they are with doing anything productive as a society. As a species, we seem to slowly wobble back and forth between these extremes. It's maddening.
How to train your dragon. The main protagonist is the son of the chief and is also generally a good person and is very likable. The supporting cast are also great. Also the subsequent movies and TV shows actually have the characters grow and age through them
Australian here. We had one really bad mass shooting and then our government (who was also one of the most conservative governments in the last 50 years) banned guns. Haven’t had one since. Guns just aren’t a thing here and we kind of think you’re a weird country for being so obsessed with guns. I also personally think it’s weird that guns are like the symbol of your freedom, yet you don’t have universal healthcare. Universal healthcare offers so much more freedom than guns do.
In saying that a lot of countries have guns and don’t have the same problem with mass shootings. What the US has is a cultural problem in terms of your relationship with guns and violence. Unfortunately, doing a mass shooting is now a normalised way to deal with your problems. Not all of you, obviously. But enough of you that it’s gotten completely out of control. In Australia I don’t think it was just the banning of guns that has reduced mass shootings. We have a culture in Australia of ‘don’t be a dickhead’. I think when we had our mass shooting we all collectively just said yeah nah mass shootings are next level dickhead behaviour.
We do have guns though, they are protected behind proper background checks and licences. And we dont fetishish them the same way many Yanks do. Definitely far fewer semi-auto and full auto guns though.
If you keep your eyes open, there are a number of gun shops around, often in quite unexpected locations. There is one near my local kebab shop, and its very subtle, so many people dont even notice it.
The Au and NZ experience with guns and pop culture vs the US is vastly different.
NZ is up there with gun ownership (in the top 20 per capita), but we have a very different culture around them, they are a hunting tool and not a misogynistic tool here. There was a bit of backlash with our last tightening of our laws - but to be frank, I got my licence after the law change with little difficulty, and who needs a semi auto AR style rifle other that those that can apply for for the appropriate licence?
Australian here, I’m literally less than ten metres away from 2 rifles and a shotgun. Used for pest control, which is mostly eaten cos rabbit and goat is delicious. Haven’t been bold enough to eat a fox yet. But yeah, they’re there. Have been visited by the cops a couple of times over the years to make sure they’re appropriately stored. Hell, you can even get a handgun here. The kicker is, you have to be a member of a gun club, regularly compete in competitions through said gun club, and the gun has to be stored at said gun club (although it can be transported from gun club to another venue for competition). So, yeah, they’re out there, but they’re heavily controlled. And we actually had an Olympic shotgun shooter get in shit a while back cos his gun was improperly stored in his car between competition and home. Nobody wants what happened in Port Arthur to happen ever again. Kids fucking died. That’s fucked. How America didn’t do something after Sandy Hook absolutely blows my mind…
I hear you, I have 5 rifles about the same distance, locked in a safe. The bolts and ammo are both in seperate lock boxes and not stored with the firearms; the keys to all are not store with any normal keys.
I think Australia has about 15-20 firearms pr 100 people and New Zealand about 25-30 (depending on where you get the stats from), compare that to the US where it’s above 150.
The whole culture around firearms is screwed there - you have senators posing for Christmas card photos with the whole family posing with a small arsenal of military firearms, or a guy guys caught on camera (clearly carrying side arms) saying “I feel threatened”, in a power pose/alpha-male stance, while advancing on some other guy in a mall.
From here, on the outside, the whole US feels quite fucked; and it’s not just gun violence…
The weird one for me is archery equipment. No licence, no checks, no storage requirement. And sure, you cant go on much of a spree, it still seems a bit odd that anyone can buy one. Crossbows are restricted though.
Amazingly, there’s more than one state in Australia, and they all have variances… As it is, I’m too tired to look into it and I was told this 10yrs ago, and I know requirements have change in this time so I acquiesce.
I’m not an expert in this stuff but my whole life I have been told to avoid eating mammals that primarily eat meat. Eating a fox just seems wrong, especially when there are so many good to eat rabbits.
Curious here. Just moved to a large acreage and have some 5 bears and about 10 wolfs that pose a risk to my dogs mainly. I grew up with guns so comfortable around them but had not really used one in twenty years. Now the laws require them locked up at all times but I literally need access in seconds. Have a few times have had to scare of the bears but it is the wolves that are my biggest concerns.
I can’t really lock them up or more to the point is that they would have near zero value locked up. I can’t imagine most farmers lock them up. What is the general idea around this?
Well I am deploying other options but not working that well. Just more curious what the ranch type guy that is using a rifle weekly if not daily does. Seperate lock up are not practical when you need them rapidly and at random times. I personally am for heavy gun regulation. Hand guns seem completely unneeded except for certain jobs and having more than say three rifles does not seem necessary. But in a farm or ranch situation, having them easily accessible is pretty important.
They might not have 5 bears and 10 Coyotes in a small area. Not sure what you are getting at? I suspect some of them, particularly the ones with cattle and large area often travel around with rifles. They are a bit of a necessity but I don’t suspect your much of an expert in that field. Looking for those that actually have more dangerous animals around they are dealing with daily or weekly.
Australia has predators, you donkey. And let’s look at the rest of the world. They have farmers and bears and wolves too. Many of them lock away their guns. At the risk of repeating myself, there are other options besides guns for the very specific use case you provided. I know you just want to hear what you think is right, but you’re asking the wrong person if you think I’m gonna do that.
I thought about poison but too likely a dog might get into it. Live traps are next best bet then they can be taken somewhere and shot safely. For bears the live traps are quite large so not so easy. Mind you not so worried about the bears. They run from even if small dogs. I am more concerned in the event where you need immediate access such as an attack. The Coyotes will come right up to the house but lucky the dogs have not been around or inside. They are crafty buggers so you pretty much need to be ready right then if you want to shoot them. Might just have to hunt them. We live right next to town and I know they have killed a few pets to date.
I suspect many with real wild animal issues do not lock their guns away although they may tell people they do. Curious how many people don’t.
This may surprise you, but farmers, shepherds etc, all defended their animals just fine before the invention of guns. You’re also making a lot of assumptions about others. But I guess that’s okay in your mind cos it validates your fears. Maybe look into changing that.
And to be clear, I’m not anti gun. Like I said, I am near a handful of them. But your commenting on a 4 day old post the way you are just screams “please validate my tiny dick energy”…
To be sure there are ways to defend animals and large animals usually will protect their young. The majority of farmers with livestock have guns in Canada and few have any qualms of using them. We are not living in the stone age. Not sure what your problem is as I am curious what most are doing overall. I suspect most don’t lock up not do I see it as a significant safety issue surrounding gun culture like there is in the US. I have never heard of a rancher going postal. Nearly all the mass shootings I can recall are from gun happy people that having nothing to do with ranch or farm type lifestyles. So not sure what your problem is unless you just like to be silly or argumentative or just a dink. Whatever. I am more worried about my smaller dogs. If I can kill them will do so but might have to hunt them down I suspect. Was hoping I could just take it the ones that approach the main yard but if hunting them, likely will have to kill them all as won’t know who the nuisance ones are.
Well that is why I would rather just kill the ones that are aggressive and less fearful and would approach people houses. Now I understand why you were being goofy. Is not about gun safety as I was asking but think any killing of nuisance animals it’s unwarranted. Not what I was asking but thanks for your input.
If it comes to the death of one of my dogs or some coyote that hangs around, my dogs will always come first. Sorry if you think that is not normal.
American here. This is sadly very true and I find it unbelievably distressing. For me, after Sandy Hook happened (the mass shooting of over 20 elementary school aged children) and nothing changed, it became clear nothing would ever change. And I feel completely helpless about it. I used to be highly opposed to having a gun in my home but it’s gotten so bad that I’m starting to consider getting one for our safety…which pisses me the fuck off because then I feel like I’m forced to be part of the problem. I went to a big trick or treating Halloween event last weekend in a major part of town with lots of kids and adults, and in the back of my head I definitely had a little fear that this would be the kind of thing that would get shot up these days. It’s so far out of control, it’s so disgusting.
I actually don’t blame you because I would feel the same way if I lived in America. I hate guns, but would feel the need to have a gun if I lived there. It seems like such a cycle of mutually assured destruction that just keeps escalating out of control.
My reaction was, instead of feeling hopeless, I’ve started to call for abolishing the Second Amendment. I’m done trying to compromise with people that care more about guns than children.
So, do you have a hunting or an sporting shoot license for your guns? France laws are the same as the rest of the EU, guns are very controlled, people in Europe don’t talk about guns as a means of revolution against the government. Unless you meant you’re french in the way 'Muricas say they’re Italian or Irish, i.e. they have a great grandfather that once passed through that country.
It’s not something we discuss often, and none of us have guns. But we all feel extremely weak against the government which we all hate, and that openly violates the core principles enonciated when we created the republic. People are getting angry, but it’s something that’s still very new
Here’s my (fallible) understanding of the nugget of truth behind the soy nonsense.
Plants contain something called phytoestrogen. It has a similar shape and function in plants to estrogen in humans. Soy contains a lot of it.
However, since it is made of different chemicals to estrogen it does not act like estrogen in humans.
Still, because it has the word “estrogen” in it, a lot of idiots think it will cause you to become weak and grow tits if you eat soy. You know, like a woman. Hence the “soyboy” memes and the use of the term as an insult, mostly by woman-hating alt-right goons.
It’s possible your friend is covertly falling for the fallacy, or perhaps their concern is several times removed; i.e. they fell for someone’s lie based on a lie based on a lie based on bigotry.
This is more complicated, as is often the case. The phytoestrogen in soy does have similar effects on people as human estrogen, and the effects can be rather positive (regulation of weight and better insuline sensitivity). Source here.
The same review mentions potencial negative effects and concerns: “In adult male rats, exposure to dietary soy decreased androgen levels and prostate weight.” and “In humans, the use of soy or purified phytoestrogens in women at high risk of, or diagnosed with, breast cancer as well as in infants fed with soy-based formula are legitimate areas of concern.”
Both beneficial and adverse effects of soy seem to be understudied. For more information about soy phytoestrogens and both male and female fertility, check out this article.
Sir, we’re on the internet discussing conspiracy theories. About if a extremely common condiments and milk substitution ingredients, can turn you into a woman. There is nothing like a obvious s.
But I do admit I did also really like the response and it does fall closer to the obvious s than some other ones, but you really can’t be to sure this days.
It’s a review based on a number of scientific papers that research either one or the other. I think based on the results of the studies the authors decided it was safe to write about both phytoestrogen contained in whole soy and the purified one, because the concerns connectedto both these things are similar. I think that’s legitimate.
Mix that together with that soy often is involved in meat replacements for vegans, and the alt-right idea that eating meat is manly, preferably while mixed with beer and cigarettes.
The first time I saw headlines on the internet about this, I wasn’t sure what to think. I was hanging out with a friend and I saw him put soy milk in his coffee. I asked him if he’d seen the news about estrogen. He hadn’t. I related it as best I could, and he listened, giving me some pretty skeptical side eye.
I closed with “I dunno, if it’s something you put in your body every single day it might be worth finding out more. Before, you know…”
“IT WORKS JUST FINE,” he said, and that was the end of that conversation!
I mean, you’re not wrong. And someone else replying suggested maybe soy does have some effect. However I feel like the MtF trans community would be up in arms with joy if they could just drink soy milk instead of taking estrogen pills, plus we’d probably have heard something from asian countries where soy is consumed a lot more if it was that bad for you.
The steering axle is in the front. So if you back into a parking space, you turn around your back axle. This makes the alignment considerably easier, especially for tight parking spaces or crowded parking lots. If you wanted to park front first in that situation, you would have to correct several times because the turning radius is too big to get the car straight in front of the spot in one swoop.
This is exacerbated the longer your vehicle is. It is impossible to turn wide enough with my pickup truck to park forward because the front end swings too much. The more efficient car I take on normal commuting doesn’t have this issue.
So, let’s put aside for a moment the rather shocking number of people casually advocating for murder in this thread.
I want to talk instead about how everyone here is just talking for granted the notion that removing the billionaires, Republican politicians, or whatever “they” you care to think of, would be a solution, or even a positive step, for modern social ills.
There’s a big undercurrent in almost any political discussion online, this implication that every one of the world’s problems actually has a super simple solution, that The Powerful could just snap their fingers and make it happen if they wanted to, and it’s only because of their greed etc that we have any problems that all. Obviously we live in a time of huge inequity and we’d be a lot better off if we found a good way to improve it.
But many (most?) of our biggest problems are inherent to the challenge of keeping 8 billion people alive and happy in a hostile universe, and in fact nobody has ever had a perfect solution. Throwing the entire planet into chaos by causally throwing away human beings’ rights and leaving an enormous portion of the world’s capital in uncertain hands, ready to be seized by some other set of psychopathic opportunists who happen to be in a position to do so, certainly ain’t it.
Yeah, but I’m still doing it on purpose to help the community grow. Somebody’s gotta fill this place with content, and at the end of the day that’s our job.
Normally I’m more of a commenter exclusively unless I need the services of a specific community. (video game question usually) But the Lemmy project has sent me digging for all the best youtube stuff I’ve seen in basically the past decade and then finding the community to shove it in.
Yea, like 500 times too. I really like the feature on here that checks around for other places the same video might’ve been posted.
Like, I shared a vid to Video Essays on LotR theme composition, y’know, niche but not too-niche, and saw it had already been posted in basically every LotR sub. But cool, I posted it anyway cuz it wasn’t in that sub yet and it was good content. But it got like two upvotes (probably me and the mod) and I didn’t have to really wonder why–oversaturation. Nice feature, big fan of it.
Same here. I have a 9 year account on Reddit with only a few hundred posts and karma; by the time I found something worth posting about anything I posted would either drown out in the noise or essentially already be posted.
the worst part is you’d almost always end commenting in a thread that gets deleted due to rules etc if you tried to get ahead of the curve and comment in a brand new post. I’m way more active here because I’m trying to help build the community.
There are multiple reasons, but one thing I’ve read is that part of the strategy of taking down someone big is to take down the people who work for him first. The process results in more evidence being gathered, plea deals that result in yet more evidence, etc.
This is probably a correct assumption, plus it also keeps it relevant. More of his supporters/underlings going to jail and it keeps the heat on. It drew it out for how long and now the nation is ramping up for another election and Trump’s indictments start flying in.
They are also worried about setting dangerous precedents in the process of closing these loopholes we didn’t think needed closing (like the largely ceremonial congressional ratification of votes on Jan 6,or the peaceful transition of power in general) and dismantling an enterprise whose director continually aims to obstruct a good faith process to the bitter end (Trump’s attacks on legislative and judicial branches, specifically DOJ and it’s bureaus).
Also, he’s not exactly “free.”. That being said, it is truly infuriating, and detrimental to all of us, consciously and subconsciously. It’s like Republicans are living out the ending of “Requiem for a Dream.”
“gained fans” is problematic because it’s subjective, but it’s being widely reported that his polling has improved with the indictments. This is the first hit in search with some details but there are many articles like it.
Briefly, the narrative that it’s a politically motivated witch hunt is resonating with voters.
If the trump era taught me only a couple things, one of them is that polls aren’t really very useful.
Yeah I don’t doubt there are some folks who now are more motivated to vote for trump… however that really exceeds the number who turned away from him?
What other criminal in history survives literally infinite evidence against them, and not just with their existing supporters, but also that evidence actively somehow turns NEW people in their favor? AND those new people outnumber the people who finally realize the truth??I just had a literal nightmare and this scenario feels right at home in the fucked world my mind conjured.
Yeah, but also remember that if there is one thing history taught us, it is that a non popular voted president can win still. Many of us were in disbelief when it happened with this guy.
Also, don’t underestimate the fact that people may disagree with Trump, but they only have to disagree/hate Biden more in order to vote for this guy.
So yes, I do agree that his polls may be increasing or rather, I never underestimate that they could be.
All fair points. I’m not resting on my laurels though. I’m just against the idea that we should be timid about prosecuting the motherfucker because of polls
one of them is that polls aren’t really very useful
IDK about this. We’ve certainly learned that polls are poor predictors of election outcomes, but can they at least reveal trends like “approval is increasing/decreasing” ? IDK.
I watch a lot of automotive content on YouTube, and it’s been interesting seeing right wing ads evolve (and yes, the fact that I like cars means they think I’m conservative bums me out, I also subscribe to bicycle stuff and climatetown, but whatever).
There’s a new one that is basically “Trump will lose to Biden again. Vote for anyone but him in the primary.” Kinda warmed my heart a bit.
There are plenty of ways to do open source, and the differences mostly come down to the license something is published under. Some licenses prohibit redistribution, while others restrict commercial use. One of the more popular permissive licenses is the GNU General Public License (or GPL for short). Which you can read up on over here.
Technically there’s nothing stopping you from ignoring the terms of the license agreement and just doing whatever. Think “agreeing to the terms without actually reading them”. While the licenses are usually proper grounds for legal action, it depends on the project and the resources associated wether actual legal action is within the realm of possibilities.
When it comes to “everything is open source”, you’re technically correct in the sense that you can reverse engineer everything and the amount of work you’re willing to put in is the only limiting factor. Compiled code and techniques like code obfuscation and encryption will pose barriers, but they will not protect from someone determined to get in. In the same way a door lock will not protect you from someone who brings a blowtorch.
Some code is technically not open source, but is delivered in human-readable form. This is the case for things like websites and scripts in languages like python. Other software is compiled (pre-converted to specific instructions for your processor), and is delivered in binary, which is not particularly human-readable. But with the right tools even binary applications can be “decompiled” and converted into something slightly more closely resembling the original source code.
So, in summary: It depends how you look at it, generally speaking open source means that te source code is available for the public to see and that you’re free to submit any suggestions or improvements to the code, no matter who you are. In practise the source code is sometimes visible (out of technical necessity or for troubleshooting purposes) even though the product is not open source, in which case the end user license agreement will likely contain a clause prohibiting you from doing anything with it.
It's not a perfect analogy, but a good way to think about it if you're not a programmer is to say "why do we need recipes when we can just buy a product in the store and read the ingredients list".
Just because you know the ingredients, that doesn't mean you know how to put them together in the right order, in the right quantities, and using the correct processes to recreate the finished product.
If a 5star chef is making a dish, I wouldn’t know what they put in it anyways, so I think this analogy still works.
If they would show me the recipe/source code, I probs would be astonished, like “Oh yeah, now I can taste the $(whatever ingredient) in it!”, but wouldn’t be able to put it together like them
The term “open source software” was specifically invented to refer to the same set of software licenses as “free software”; but with a different political angle.
I remember reading the opposite back in the day, that this is why RMS dislikes the term “open source” and prefers “Free software” as more descriptive. Open source refers to software where you can read the source, but the license it’s under does not necessarily gaurantee freedom to the user.
The people who coined the term “open source software” disagree, though. They’re allowed to be right about the use of their own term.
(And extensionally, the set of software licenses accepted as “open source” by the “open source” people, and the set accepted as “free software” by the “free software” people, are the same set of licenses. Both agree that Microsoft “Shared Source” is not in this set, for example.)
This. If you like to follow people (Twitter-style) then Mastodon is the right tool for you. If you are focused on topics and don’t care much who supplies the content (Reddit-style) then Lemmy is what you want.
“Sealioning” here refers to a way of trolling by asking ill-intended questions, usually disguising it in innocence. When other members try to explain and help, they’d try to lure them into hours of discussion upon it, usually by knowingly misinterpreting what they heard.
Or worse, just directly disrespect and reject all the suggestions the commenters provided. The essence is being a waste of time for everyone.
Sealioning is a sort of evolution of JAQing off. It’s the JAQ coupled with feigned innocence and indignance when people actually stop putting up with BS.
Actually after thinking a bit deeper about it, it mirrors Socratic Questioning, but with the opposite intended end goal of muddying the waters instead of gaining clarity.
It’s related but it differs on the form. Concern trolling is derailing online discussions and debates by simulating concern over a seemingly valid counterpoint, making all participants waste time and effort arguing a previously settled matter, or pretending to just be playing devil’s advocate. Acting as if, although you support the cause or discussion at hand, you somehow still have some valid concerns to oppose.
Concern trolling is acting like you’re concerned about the consequences of something.
Like,
If we let people wear masks during COVID, we’ll see more bank robberies because masks are normalized!
Sea Lioning would be if I just kept asking you questions about why masks help, often while asking you to link sources. I don’t actually want to see any sources tho. I’m just going to keep asking new questions and for more sources until you get tired and stop replying.
Because the more time you waste on me, they less you help people who are genuinely asking for it. Plus when you stop replying, I can claim that as a victory because that must mean there aren’t any sources that agree with you.
I don’t think so. As far as I’m aware, concern trolling is an act to lower morale and place distrust among the opposing side. A person who’s on side B pretends to be on side A.
Let’s say you’re an admin on this site, and you have made a post asking for server donations.
Then just when all was going well, another member comes to the comments, who seems to support you and praise you really well at first. The rest of their comment is then telling everyone that they “appreciate your work”, but “you can’t handle it”, because this or that. Causing some of your genuine members to question you with their “concerns”
I’m on your side, so you should take my bullshit concerns seriously!
Concern trolling is “raising concerns” about certain issues that have little to no basis in reality and only serves to inject bigotry and bad ideas. For example, people were concerned about “the gays™” spreading their immoral gay AIDS virus all over innocent children during the 80s and into the 90s, only to learn that AIDS is spread through contact with broken mucosa membranes, which then shifted to “the gays™ are pedos” argument.
But y’know, if someone walks up and makes disparaging racist remarks about how they don’t like your kind, following them round and demanding they explain themselves out loud is about the most appropriate response that exists.
That would depend a lot on the context. What catches a moderator’s attention on an issue like this wouldn’t be seeing the individual post, rather seeing the reports about it. A mod usually acts on the consensus of the community and tries to determine if the members are correct in reporting things. They may be correct or wrong, but most of the time it’ll be correct. And we’d of course step back and apologize if we thought we were wrong.
Everyone points to the comic in regards to sealioning, but I have always equated it to posters who are incapable of having an actual debate and keep saying “Why? Why? Why? Why?” until they get tired and fall asleep under the pier (but then their friend wakes up and takes over).
But why, specifically, is the term “Sealioning”? Is it referencing some behavior exhibited by sealions? Is it an aggregate of or wordplay on other slang?
I’ve seen Sealioning used quite a bit in a particular Lemmy instance that would self describe themselves as Pro-Russia & Pro-China, as a way of shutting down discourse between people who disagree with them. There are people who disagree with a particular narrative, and they’re discounted immediately for wanting to know how someone would arrive at a pro-Russian & pro-China position.
Also they’ll just “whatabout!” and change the subject whenever unassailable critiques of these regimes come up. As if its is only possible to hold outrage in a single direction at a time.
I’ll have you know I’m capable of disliking EVERYONE mentioned in a given conversation.
nostupidquestions
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.