You know I’ve been thinking about loss and it’s usage on the internet and at this point I think we’ve jumped the shark - what started as a way to express dissatisfaction with the way an issue was handled - has now turned into a “haha loss funny” meme - which kinda takes the piss out miscarriage - a very real issue that affects a lot of people. Maybe I’m just getting old but I feel we should bring this meme to greener pastures…

I mean the whole 1972 rape fantasy essay he wrote was potentially progressive at the the time but feels quite tone-deaf and ham fisted nowadays…

“Women are you still not sure if you want to be a woman” egg_irl much…

Interesting - as the article notes the first amendment was specifically implemented to protect unpopular view points - which is tricky because it does mean that white supremacists have the same right to voice their ideas as critical race theorists - but how do we balance that hate speech should have the same footing as voicing concerns around oppression?

even more so when those that are oppressed will have a harder time of being heard in the first place? should the law (as the 1st amendment specifically says that a view not held by society is still protected) tolerate hate and bigotry? it appears the nazi bar is guarded by the first amendment :/

Which is why the bot is not useful - it literally tries to standardize political stances when that’s actually impossible.

Same reason I don’t trust it - imagine rating fking BBC (the literal pro-state violence, austerity supporting, anti-immigration governmental mouth piece as “left-center”)

It just distorts people’s perception of what political biases are and makes them complacent by relying on an automated bot to do the important work of using your own judgment for what constitutes as moral or justified.

By letting it platform itself on lemmy, it’s basically inserting itself as the de facto expert on the topic - so for example, people overseas might see BBC rated as left-center and highly factual and start believing that wanting to “secure your borders” is a thing that UK leftist want. Well excuse me if I don’t want a privately owned (even if open source) US company deciding what political views others should have.

Being grateful is pretty neat but make sure to reciprocate! - “Suck her clit every morning to thank her for choosing you” 🥰

Using your brain

I think we’re both describing the same flat earth argument - still my point is that while there is a correlation between the coming out and the subsequent radicalization, it would be overly simplistic to claim direct causation. The coming out event acted as a catalyst that revealed and perhaps accelerated pre-existing tendencies in the family member who became radicalized, but it did not cause the bigotry itself.

thank you for the kind words :)

but then why blame the people that are saying “uhm you really shouldn’t be joining a cult (bigotry) that harms everyone” instead of the cult leaders (the bigoted mouthpieces pushing harmful rhetoric)?

it’s like saying that if your family never made claims the earth is round you would have never looked up anything related to it and wouldn’t have become a flat earther.

idk maybe it’s just that as LGBTQ+ i don’t like to think that if i were to come out it would cause my family to turn into bigots (which just makes me never want to bring it up 🤷)

I would argue it isn’t direct cause and effect as most likely that member has always harbored those feelings but being confronted with their beliefs is the catalyst that makes them veer into openly bigoted territory.

I think what OP is trying to say is that by claiming LGBTQ+ people coming out is the cause of people’s bigotry it will only make them less likely to come out but wouldn’t actually reduce the number of bigots in the world. (I know that’s probably not the argument you were trying to make, but it’s what it sounded like from the outside)

Here’s some math on that “revolutionary” idea to put things into perspective, as it turns out, it’s pretty underwhelming:

• If we used ALL the aluminum produced globally in a year (about 65 million tons), we’d get around 7.30 million tons of hydrogen.
• While that might sound like a lot, it really isn’t… That hydrogen would contain about 8.30 x 10^14 BTUs of energy.
• Meanwhile, our annual global methane production is sitting pretty at 1.14 x 10^17 BTU.
• Doing the math, and our “amazing” aluminum-to-hydrogen process gives us a whopping 0.73% of the energy we get from methane…

And remember, this is assuming we use EVERY SINGLE BIT of aluminum we produce globally!

Obv hydrogen is “cleaner” than gas, but the point is the scale - this method is a drop in the ocean compared to current energy usage.

TL;DR: Using ALL the world’s annual aluminum production to make hydrogen would only give us 0.73% of the energy we get from natural gas…

.

.

.

.

For the math nerds, here’s more detail on the chemistry and energy calc:

• The reaction: 2 Al + 6 H2O → 2 Al(OH)3 + 3 H2
• Global aluminum production: ~65 million metric tons/year
• Molar mass of Al = 26.98 g/mol
• Moles of Al = 65,000,000,000 kg / 0.02698 kg/mol = 2.41 x 10^12 moles
• H2 produced = (2.41 x 10^12 moles Al * 3) / 2 = 3.62 x 10^12 moles H2
• Mass of H2 = 3.62 x 10^12 moles * 2.016 g/mol = 7.30 x 10^12 g = 7.30 million metric tons

BTU Calculation:

• Energy content of H2 = 113,738 BTU/kg
• Total energy from H2 = 7.30 x 10^9 kg * 113,738 BTU/kg = 8.30 x 10^14 BTU

Methane Comparison:

• Annual natural gas production ≈ 4,000 billion cubic meters
• Assuming 80% methane content: 3,200 billion cubic meters of methane
• Energy content of methane ≈ 35,663 BTU/m^3
• Total energy from methane = 3,200 x 10^9 m^3 * 35,663 BTU/m^3 = 1.14 x 10^17 BTU
• Ratio: (8.30 x 10^14) /(1.14 x 10^17) = 0.0073 or 0.73%

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the police force in Ireland (an emotion I’m sure isn’t shared by everyone) I feel that it glosses over the intense distrust of other forces, like the PSNI (incorporating the RUC) in Northern Ireland, and the negative effects of state beneficial clique formations. (eg. union constables against anti-union communities)

So while you might see the Garda Síochána as a step in the right direction for a liberated Ireland - I think it’s important to never forget the main purpose of the polis - to maintain monopoly on violence.

So while the Gardaí may appear to work for you right now - I just hope you never have to be on the “wrong” side of the state and have to feel the force of “legitimate” violence used against you, especially when standing with your community against capitalist sponsored state oppression (eg Shell to Sea)

Right, I’m sure IRA supporters definitely consider the polis a public service…

Do you really think there’s more wildlife in managed hay fields compared to letting those fields rewild? Seems quite dubious

FYI I’m a reject modernity return to hunter gatherer shill so I think humans should aim to reduce the amount of cultivated land in general

This post was maybe referring to agrovoltaics?

The largest instillations in the US are in the middle of the fucking desert.

Still this is obviously worse right? We’re taking untouched wilderness and turning it into a wasteland of blue silica. Deserts are pretty unique biomes with their own set of diverse animal and plant wildlife.

Farm land is already void of most biodiversity and usually used to grow corn or some other form of unnecessary cattle feed - yeah ideally both get rewilded - but it feels better to reuse an already existing bio wasteland instead of creating new ones…

What I don’t get is why spend the effort dealing with YTs shit just to increase their userbase when we should be focusing on shifting people away from YT and into decentralized solutions like PeerTube anyways?

That’s easy. People who wish others to die. They die first. If they are willing to accept sacrificing others, they die first.

I didn’t agree to die. Or to be killed. Or murdered. Yet I have to be executed all the same, because they don’t care if you die or not.

First to die.

Isn’t this just a DIY brushless dynamo? Am I missing something? Still cool tho

I mean you could have asked why Israel attacks refugee camps in the first place (even before Hamas)?

Or do you think that atrocities like "women and children were stripped, lined up, photographed and then slaughtered by automatic fire" doesn’t breed resentment? (not that Hamas didn’t do the same on 7.11 but let’s not pretend Israel isn’t at least as complicit as Hamas in the overall conflict)

I’ll admit using civilians as shields is indeed dreadful - but my main point is acknowledging that violence only breeds more violence and that the first step to preventing more deaths is dismantling the current terror state form of Israel, not killing more and more civilians as some form of extirpation…

I’ll leave you with this - if there’s no oppressor to rally against, what would give Hamas power?