Most confederate statues are cheap crap bulk built all over the place sometime after the civil war as a sort of long term propaganda. They aren’t historical, they are reputation management.
I actually don’t know anything about those. Were they put there while the soviet union still existed/built by the soviet union themselves, or were they put there later after by some fan of the soviet union? If the goal is to keep what is historical, regardless of political context, that would be the key distinction in my opinion.
I think using a vote strategically is fine, but I also think not voting out of protest is fine.
The point of voting is it is your choice, and the logic for how each individual determines how to use it is not my concern.
Each vote accounts for so little impact on the political process that individually they are literally meaningless, but at the same time, that sentiment being held by too many people literally breaks the concept of voting from functioning entirely. It is almost paradoxical.
I think it is best to keep moral arguments and opinions about how other people vote to a minimum, and try to keep the conversation more about the candidates themselves.
One vote can only ever have one vote’s worth of impact, which in almost all cases is completely negligible. I think it is an unfair exaggeration to say “far more damage”. If anything, the risk is the act of trying to convince other people to not vote out of protest, which I am against the same way I am against implying a lack of a support for one party is somehow support for their main competitor. Strategic voting does not dictate morality.
Arguing about this and demanding people fall in line also contributes to voter apathy. The best way to motivate people to participate is to give them the freedom to come to their own conclusions.
In minecraft, if you wanna mine some iron, you punch a tree, use the wood to slap out a wooden pickaxe, grab some stone with it, then make a stone pickaxe, and you can mine it.
In vintage story you can’t mine rock until you have a pickaxe, the lowest level of which is copper. You have to knap stone tools from rocks you find on the ground, and you can’t make wood into planks until you have a saw (also needs metal). To get started with metalworking you have to explore and find copper bits sitting on the ground untill you have a lot, make crucibles and molds out of clay and fire them in a pit kiln, burn wood into charcoal in a pit (because wood doesn’t burn hot enough to melt copper), and then you can melt and pour your copper into a mold. Do that with a pickaxe head mold, put it on a stick, and now you can mine stone. Then go find some more metals and do that some more because to mine iron you actually need a bronze pickaxe.
Nice to see it on lemmy. I really like this game, feels like the Primitive Technology videogame.
Edit: I should point out that this game also has amazing mod support and there are good mods for it. If you like modding minecraft you will like this game, I’m almost certain.
It started life as a minecraft mod called vintagecraft. I believe you could say terrafirmacraft was one of it’s inspirations. They made this a standalone game when they got frustrated with minecraft’s limitations.
I had to be nihilistic for a while before I could realize everything was important. From flies to people to stars to dirt. Our human brains are a filter that cuts away stuff irrelevant to our survival and leaves us with a false perspective, a perspective where value is determined by only our needs. In truth, every person, every animal, every piece of matter, and more are infinitely important participatory pieces of an unimaginably important universe.
I think they are arguing that using disney stuff as training data would be the infringement, and if the logo showed up in generated images, that would be proof they did that.
But I’m guessing because it is phrased weird if they meant that. Idk.
I’m on team “glad you responded” but I still wanna respond to 2 things you said.
First, a lot of anti-abortion people want the abortion conversation to end at “this is murder”, but how do you address the bodily autonomy argument? Even if I accept any and all abortions as the full death of a complete person, why are women compelled to donate their bodies to save another person? I don’t support forced organ donations to save lives, and by that logic I also do not support forced pregnancies. Any opinion on that perspective?
Christian nationalism isn’t complicated in what it is, it is just the desire/push/beliefs from the people that want a nation with an explicitly christian government, a christian theocracy. If it completely took over everything, freedom of religion would be dead, everything would be christian. To try and rephrase it bluntly, Christian nationalism is the desire for and work towards a Christian nation. Some people take it seriously, some people don’t, some people outright support it, others deny it even is a real concept.
Edit to add: if you aren’t anti-lgbtq, will you call your representatives that you vote for and emphatically tell them so? The difference in opinions between conservatives and their politicians about lgbtq is something I hear from most conservatives I’ve talked to, but it makes me sad to see they don’t really care beyond saying “I’m not anti-lgbtq”. If you vote for an anti-lgbtq politician because of other policies they support, please at least tell them you don’t agree with their anti-lgbtq stance. It is literally the least amount of help I can think of to ask for.
No, I don’t see fetuses as babies, I feel no moral stress whatsoever in supporting abortion rights. But that is a different point. You were casually claiming adoption as a solution even though it requires thousands of times more effort from a society that currently refuses to provide that effort.
And this is an internet comment, not a research paper, google it. There is so much data on this shit, I’m not gunna spoon feed it to a stranger just because I point out something they said is BS.
You know what I changed my mind. I’ll do a little research paper for you, but only if you do it first, defending your claim that the most likely result of an abortion ban is (mostly) an increase in adoptions.
I prefer sources to be papers, but I’ll accept anything that cites it’s data well.
Alright I’m gunna take this point by point because broadly I understand what you are trying to get at but you have a few details that bother me and I feel derail the whole thing.
But I didn’t make the claim that this was definitely going to happen, just that it was the likely outcome
Me neither, I was talking about historical precedent, not some hard and fast rule of the universe.
based on the common sense assumption that if abortion access wasn’t easy, safe, and anonymous, and involved a significant risk of injury or death for the mother, more women would likely find it less risky to carry their pregnancy to term and give up the baby for adoption
First of all, with the “death or injury” part of this, I don’t see why this is preferable. Seems like threatening their lives and happiness in the interest of forcing births. But also, this assumes there aren’t other ways this can shake out in the end, and child abuse, abandonment and childhood homelessness, and human trafficking are all part of this topic and all things that increase when abortion is illegal. Your common sense assumption is based on a situationally perfect example, and it doesn’t make sense when applied to real world experiences.
if they haven’t changed their mind on it by then.
This is just a piece of that bullshit take that argues women will learn to love their future babies if they are just forced to carry them long enough that abortions are more difficult and less legally accessable. Nah
From my point of view, I find the claim that making abortion illegal would not prevent even a single one from occurring far more incredulous and therefore requiring a higher level of proof.
Good thing I wasn’t claiming that then. I’m saying the amount prevented would be negligible, not magically impossibly zero. It would likely be a small amount, and utterly overshadowed by the negative effects of banning abortions.
I honestly wouldn’t know where to start looking for data on that.
Generally any search engine is a good start, although you can go to google scholar if you want more academic and dense results. Then, just look for what experts/doctors are saying. Try to stick to groups that verify each other and are verified by outside groups, individual experts are fallible on who knows what, so trust the experts that other experts seem to trust. Generally unless you want to be a researcher yourself, these are the most trustworthy and direct sources for data and such you can possibly get.
Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it.
I rejected that. I didn’t say “there would be the same amount of abortions no matter the law” or anything like you seem to think. I don’t think it would be “severely” reduced, and the negatives are extreme to the point of being unacceptable.
As for the data you want me to provide, I refer to the other things said. Unless you agree to also put in the effort to provide data to support your argument, I’m not going to put in all that effort for a random internet convo. Since you made the first claim (at least that I interacted with) (“Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it”), you can go first.
To be blunt I find the behaviour of demanding rigorous sources and academic honesty in internet arguments obnoxious and hypocritical. Very few people read them, they just want them as stamps of approval. And most conversations I see where someone is demanding sources, they are who should be logically providing sources to the conversation. It is just a silly part of internet culture dancing around pretending to be intellectualism. On a personal level I do love sources though, when they get posted. Not just for accuracy, I find them fun to read.
That is exactly my point. Glad you could see it my way.
Except for the draw part. This wasn’t a competition, and in the nicest way possible, I’ll just walk away from this thinking you are fully incorrect, and I assume you will do the same about me. “Agree to disagree” is more for people who actually know each other. Bye stranger!
Whether it was intentionally designed this way or just something that stuck because it benefitted them, the way they are trained teaches them to behave in that confusing way, and results in them being more often able to justify the use of force (just justify it, they use force whenever they want) because “the suspect wasn’t following orders”.
Oooh that one is rough, especially since you just said generic “wasp”. That would get rid of a monumental amount of pollinators, specialist ones. And scavengers and predators that help manage other pests. And a large number of wasps are smaller and don’t sting, instead they have ovipositors. I won’t get into detail what they do with em, but they are harmless to humans and often amazing at taking out populations of agricultural pests, like hornworms
Huh. Do you live pretty far from where beavers do (not asking you to be specific)?
But yes, beavers are great. They are what is known as a “keystone species” because they create the wetland environments that many other species depend on to live in. They eat wood, and yes, the way they build dams is by piling debris/wood wherever they find/hear flowing water, until they’ve plugged it all up. Then they build a lodge with an underwater entrance in the pond they made, and stock it with sticks to eat through the winter. I think they are adorable.
I know you meant the ones that you don’t want to get stung by, but even those don’t exist to sting you, they are important predators and scavengers of their environments, and their loss would still have negative effects.
Plus, the context of the post is discussing the possible negative impacts if certain animals just disappear, so I used your phrasing as an excuse to talk about something I think is interesting. I mean, without wasps, you don’t have figs anymore, at all, and all sorts of other stuff. I think that is neat.
I can’t tell you why but it is a style to have most characters to have huge round eyes, and then have characters have magically tiny beady eyes whenever they have glasses on. They do move and look like pupils, but also get to blink for some reason. You can see that style in lots of stuff.
If the culture war is the class war then the class war is the culture war. Dealing with the culture war is often many many times more actionable. We can and should deal with both.
As it stands right now, individual mods have way too much power to fuck up the platform by banning people for political reasons and the modlog is not even remotely adequate in providing a full story on such actions. This isn’t too big of an issue now, but as certain instances have proven, it has the potential to become a...
Can comments just be funny? Why does everyone have to try and make some deep point?
Really though why should a broad medium like comics need to be limited in tone and theme? Just because you like unserious comics? Serious comics don’t stop those from existing.
Sorry I had to just deadpan describe what you were doing. Normally it would be a mood killer, and I would avoid doing that, but the mood in here is already rancid.
Honestly its just when asking questions about the political beliefs people hold close to their identity, especially on forums where they are already defensive, you have to do the work to phrase your questions in particular ways that don’t make anyone feel as though they are being disagreed with. If they feel like they are talking to a political opponent, they don’t feel motivated to answer well, or answer.
I mean, you can do whatever you want, but I’ve found you can’t get decent answers in places like this unless you do the emotional labor to make the people you are speaking to feel comfortable.
Dear Lemmy, **why** Star Trek??
Every single large server in this federation has at least one Star Trek community. There is even an entire server dedicated to Star Trek....
Southern Heritage (lemmy.world)
Centaurse rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Welcome to Flavortown! (lemmy.world)
George Takei's Based Voting Take [Rule} (files.catbox.moe)
Image Transcription:...
10:30 it is 👍 (lemmy.world)
Small farm house with forge (sh.itjust.works)
Game is “Vintage Story”. It’s similar to Minecraft, but slower paced.
nihilsm rule (yiffit.net)
Microsoft AI Image Generator Blocks 'Disney' After Viral Movie Poster Trend (petapixel.com)
Non-religious Republicans of Lemmy, how do you reconcile your non-religious convictions with a party that bases a lot of its policies on religion?
E.g. abortion rights, anti-LGBTQ, contempt for atheism, Christian nationalism, etc.
conversation rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
sErVe aNd pRoFeCt (lemmy.ml)
What animal could you delete from existence with a mostly positive outcome for the planet?
And don’t say humans, too obvious, too cynical....
Which video game did you bounce off of at first, but then tried again later for it to become one of your favorites of all time?
pet rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Half a ti (lemmy.world)
NWBTCW (lemmy.world)
Lemmy Moderation needs WAY more transparency and accountability if the platform is to survive
As it stands right now, individual mods have way too much power to fuck up the platform by banning people for political reasons and the modlog is not even remotely adequate in providing a full story on such actions. This isn’t too big of an issue now, but as certain instances have proven, it has the potential to become a...
Riven – Port Sherry (Pedro Arizpe) (i0.wp.com)
Source: Riven – Port Sherry...
I've had more conversations about this than I care to count. (lemmy.world)
Kick tankies out of 196 (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Remember kids, Tankies wants to undermine democracy - same as facists.