The US government stores over a billion pounds of cheese in enormous caves. I think we can probably get away with reducing production quite a bit.

Pantheon.

Really thoughtful and smart sci-fi animation. Don’t want to spoil it so I’ll be vague, it has the most realistic depiction of modern tech and how people interact with it than any other show I’ve seen. Really great commentary on big tech corporations and even a bit of geopolitics. Super ambitious yet it somehow pulls it off.

There is also a scene that still gives me nightmares (not even joking, I still dream about that shit) which is more than any horror movies or shows have done for me. Anyone who has watched it knows exactly what scene I’m talking about.

The idea of preventing private ownership and rent-seeking of communication platforms is.

I respect it but if you’re American and trying to take the word back, I’m afraid you’re a little too late. It’s a political party now and they’re all-in on corporatism.

Lemmy is an inherently libertarian platform

This is an interesting perception, because if you mean American libertarianism then this doesn’t really make sense. Lemmy’s creators are communist and intended it to be anti-corporate. It is designed in a decentralized manner specifically to avoid situations where companies can own and profit from it.

The kinds of platforms I would see as being libertarian (in the American sense) are the diaspora of privately owned social media companies.

Perhaps the file is missing an extension, and those are the only apps OP has that accept files without an extension?

Unfortunately if shibboleet were a thing tech illiterate users would quickly learn it and use it every time.

Does the rule only apply if they’re name-calling other commenters and not the subject of the article? If not then mke_geek’s original comment should be removed since he directly calls the subject of the article an awful person with no conditional.

Personally I think this rule is being a bit over-enforced and none of these comments should have been removed. Being overly strict with civility rules allows bad actors to take advantage of “civility politics” to shut down dissent.

Edit: except maybe the one calling them a dickhead, I get why that one was removed. The ones that just reflect their own words back at them I think should be left alone.

Ah, but you see, it’s not hypocritical because rules are just weapons to use against your opponents, and we’re suckers for not using it against them first. /s

The problem here is that you seem to value your own property rights over the right of individuals to have shelter. Sure, it’s not an ideal situation; in an ideal society “squatting” shouldn’t occur, but we live in a society where people are forced to choose between being homeless or squatting in someone’s property. If you think they should forgo their right to shelter to preserve your right to property then you are the awful person.

Climate activists can lobby in person when available, taking time away from other things. Oil companies can hire armies of lobbyists - some of whom masquerading as “concerned citizens” - to overwhelm public hearings, buy out media companies to manipulate public opinion and engage in astroturfing campaigns, and directly sway politicians with legal bribery (deliberately being vague about the purpose of “gifts” to maintain the benefit of the doubt about there being any quid pro quo involved).

Lobbying effectively requires resources - namely capital - which oil companies have in abundance and climate activists do not. To suggest that climate activists should simply fight on their terms is ignorant at best and malicious at worst.

I would suspect this is an intentional dark pattern. They’re probably hoping most people will get tired of waiting and click cancel, which sets it back to the default of allowing all cookies.

Some of us are actually aware of how fucked up the overton window is in our country you know.

I consider myself a library socialist and anarcho-syndicalist, and yes, I do support free healthcare, among other things.

As a radical leftist who lives in rural Kentucky, if I truly had so much money that it was not an issue, I would stay and try to affect change.

It’s tempting of course to move somewhere more sympathetic to my views and my desired lifestyle, but I don’t want to abandon my politically uninformed family and friends. I would rather use my wealth to organize mutual aid, fund libraries, and instill class consciousness here in my home, in the hopes of creating a community that aligns with my views and desired lifestyle.

Considering that money is power under our current economic system, this is really a question of if you received power would you use it selfishly to help only yourself or try to help others.

Don’t know and it doesn’t matter. The point is the kid, if informed properly and given the choice to go or not to go, is capable of making that choice.

You wouldn’t know what transexual means if you hadn’t been told or read or heard about it somewhere. That is as true of adults as it is of children. What you seem to be implying is that a child could not possibly understand the concept, and that is where we clearly disagree.

You don’t give children enough credit. Children are capable of understanding how they are different from others, even if they don’t have the words to describe it. They can understand that there are people with authority who make the rules, even if they don’t know the details. They are able to recognize when things are unfair and feel indignant about it, even if they’re unsure of why or how.

The mother can give her child the words to describe how they feel, the details of the world we live in, explain the whys and hows of it, and the child is capable of comparing that to what they know and thinking for themselves. Children are impressionable because of their lack of prior knowledge with which to make that comparison, but that does not mean they lack agency.

It is certainly possible that this mother manipulated her child, put words in her mouth, shielded her from information that could provide a basis for comparison, but that is an assumption for which you have no evidence except that you can’t imagine the alternative.

The alternative being that this mother raised her child lovingly, taught them all they could, trusted them with information from other sources, trusted them to make their own judgements with their guidance, and supported them when they came to their own conclusions.

That’s a lot of assumptions you’ve just made about this random mother and child you know nothing about.

They were there waiting to meet a Democratic supporter of LGBTQ+ rights, and did not seem to be seeking confrontation. Even the way the mother spoke to the Republican senator was about as non-confrontational as you could get, so I don’t see any evidence the mother is putting the kid in any situation she can’t handle. I’m sure the kid is glad to show up in support of her rights, and very much doubt she will regret doing so later.

Save your cynicism for when it’s appropriate.

He’s a good conversationalist.

The only people who fall for this propaganda from upholders of the status quo are ignorant of history. Here’s a quote from Martin Luther King that I think is very relevant:

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.