erin @ erin @piefed.blahaj.zone

Posts

0

Comments

35

Joined

1 mo. ago

Are you mad at fictional characters for their hypothetical hypocrisy lmao

Regardless of the stuff about Ada's tone, it seems like your ultimate point was the classic "paradox of tolerance." I certainly do not see enforcing a safe space as policing identity. Regardless of how respectfully done, deciding when it is okay to respect someone's identity is against blahaj rules. The consistent moderation with no room for chipping away at the edges is what attracted me to the instance. This person broke blahaj rules. They may have broken it politely (I disagree. Tone does not excuse content), but they broke the rules. Banning them for repeated invalidation of others' identities is not policing their identity. Your identity cannot be predicated on the invalidation of others. We have every prerogative to be intolerant of intolerance.

Again, regardless of Ada's tone, the point stands. You keep dancing around that. The rules were broken. This user acted inappropriately for the space they were in. They are not forced to use blahaj communities, and chose to do so while violating the rules. They have no right to our safe space if they cannot ensure it is safe for others. I strongly dislike the "just asking questions" polite veneer of your comments while very intentionally dodging the elephant in the room, which is that the user did wrong for the space they were in, regardless if you agree or not.

I think it's kinda weird to assume there are any intrinsic traits about large, diverse groups of people. There are so many Americans of so many diverse backgrounds, that I think any generalizations we can make are gonna be wildly off for a great many people. It's certainly true that most Americans did not act to prevent the current administration. However, most Americans are completely uninformed, propagandized to daily, and held down systemically so they don't focus on their oppressors. Blaming the people is easy. They should've prevented this. They shouldn't have been complacent. It's their fault for the radical individualism.

I see this happen constantly, whether it's American, Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, Israeli, Palestinian, British, etc... people, being blamed for the evils, perceived or otherwise, of their government. Often, these people are only as complicit as an abuse victim is to the person that has controlled their life and worldview to suit their own needs. Their actions and beliefs may be malicious, they may be indifferent, or they may simply be ineffective, but they receive the blame that would be more accurately aimed at those controlling their sources of information and communities.

Blaming the system takes more effort. There has been a slow, insidious, and very intentional subversion of American and global politics for decades, and it's handwaved away as conservative buffoonery and incompetence, which while present, is a very incomplete part of a larger picture. This isn't an election that people didn't turn out for. This is decades of the subversion of a democracy, the media, and a gradual pressure placed against the entire working class to keep the focus on putting food on the table, and a new culture war punching bag for each election season. I don't blame Americans. I blame the fascists that have snuck into government on populist platforms, and the people that should have been in positions to act as the safeguards who instead rolled over and gave in to the corruption.

No one is immune to propaganda. I can only hope that we rebuild better.

This might not really apply to you and your beliefs, but I think it's a discussion worth having and considering.

There are (were, I guess) trans woman competing. Why would their presence change their right to compete? Additionally, the studies are few and far between due to very low sample size, but there isn't good evidence proving that trans women have a statistically significant advantage in women's sports after being on HRT long term (2+ years). Most trans women that previously competed in men's sports perform similarly compared to women after HRT as they did to men before.

The conservative "evidence" for trans women having an advantage is simply pointing and going "see!!" any time any trans woman places better than any cis woman, even if they're well within the statistical range of women. If trans people are allowed to compete, are they allowed to ever win? In professional sports, getting lucky in the genetic lottery plays a large role in determining success. Katie Ledecky is incredibly successful due to her practice and training, but wouldn't be nearly as successful without a body conducive to swimming. What's the difference between a cis woman being born with broad shoulders and longer arms and a trans women doing the same? No one is transitioning for a competitive advantage. It's a ridiculous notion. There really isn't a good argument against trans women in sports that doesn't rely on invalidating their gender or vibes-based cherry-picked pseudoscience.

It isn't sustainable. My car takes significantly less damage per mile than a gas only car, and the gas is nearly negligible compared to the pay when you get consistent 40+ mpg. Even then, it's still not sustainable. I wouldn't recommend the job to anyone, but if someone was desperate or really set on it, then it should really only be a temporary stop-gap to something more sustainable.

I cannot see this as a valid and reasonable response to "we aren't likely to see an AI powered socialist dystopia in our lifetime, if ever." AI isn't even profitable for the capitalists that run it, and needs to constantly feed off real humans to avoid decay. It's definitely not doomsaying to see AI as a bubble and generally a grift as it's presented now, when it's likely to fit in a much more specific niche as a tool in the future. Art will stay uniquely human until AI can create without needing constant human training data.

Yep. For this reason, I left my car running when I'd stop, as idling on the hybrid battery was better than needing to cold start the car 50 times a day.

If you don't have a fuel efficient car, I wouldn't even consider it. If you do, you need to devote a lot of time to it before it becomes at all worth it (100 orders in last 30 days, good ratings, and above 70% order acceptance rate). Once you're there, it's basically as profitable as any other service job, but with the caveat that it's entirely on you and your executive function to work enough (very boring) hours to pay the bills.

Edit: also, wear and tear on your car is gonna be worth more than the job in any job where you use your personal car for 100% of the work. I would consider any of these jobs a temporary measure.

I drove down doordash for a while. Trust me, every driver knows how much they're getting screwed. You'll never be more class-conscious than having 30+ interactions with people as broke as you every day, and seeing every possible angle of fellow working class jobs. You do it for one of several reasons: you want some tiny modicum of control in your life through your schedule, you desperately need the money and it's easy as fuck to get a delivery job, or you started it for one of those reasons or something similar, got good enough to be ahead of the curve, and it's now more appealing than finding something else. The last one was where I was at.

I had done the job enough that I was making $18 an hour, well above the average in my area, and despite needing to pay for gas and taxes on a 1099a, it was still more appealing to keep control and flexibility over my life than to do something else. I could take days off whenever I wanted, see friends during the week, and coordinate my schedule with my fiancee easily. You're very aware that you're getting screwed, but you choose the devil you know, as they say.

I did delivery for long term at one point (doordash). Once you reach their highest rating and learn which orders to take/deny, it is actually quite profitable. Still massively exploitative, of course, but at the time I was making $18 an hour (high for my area), and that's also factoring in breaks and commute. I had a very fuel efficient hybrid which added to the value proposition. I was broke as fuck at the time, but it wasn't the job's fault, more the fact that I only worked exactly the amount of hours I needed each month to pay for my basic necessities and rent, and spent the rest with my friends and fiancee.

If Fairphone and Pine both don't meet your needs, then you can install a new OS on basically any android, though pixels work best. Even just getting root access to the phone opens up a ton of options for customization. There are communities on Lemmy that are all about this exact issue, though I don't know them off the top of my head.

I don't know if the format really applies. Complaining about one corporation stealing your data while using another's product that does the same seems a bit pointless, especially when there are cheaper, better alternatives. The putting a stick through your own bike tire format seems more appropriate.

Committee vote

Andor was awesome. Considering that the fighters in Star Wars do aerodynamic flight and sound is not just added for effect but audible in universe, I've always subscribed to the head canon that in the Star Wars universe, space is a gas of some sort. We also see people in space that die of suffocation, not pressure shock. The name S-foils also implies a similar purpose to airfoils, but the canon isn't even consistent on that. Some TIE models explicitly use their S-foils aerodynamically in atmosphere, but other ships are ambiguous.

High effort troll, though insulting people's intelligence while sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich is certainly a strategy. Good luck with that and your fascinating approach to discourse.

Mission failed. Try responding to my longer message on its merits, instead of dismissing anything that causes cognitive dissonance.

Is this the one response you have to everything that challenges you? Imagine if you addressed the points being made instead of implying that the reason you're incomprehensible is the reader's competence, instead of your bizarrely antisocial comments.

How often is gut-feeling actually just bias and/or bigotry under the surface though? I feel like we shouldn't use those gut feelings to make judgements, ever, without examining exactly why we're having that response. The suspect might just be socially awkward or neurodivergent and that gut-feeling is actually just unexamined prejudice.

What on earth are you on about? I have no interest in being your friend or influencing you. I'm having a good time making fun of a troll acting ridiculous.

You seem like an insane person. Imagine a hypothetical community that has a bunch of positive and uplifting content, but about 10% of posts are just making fun of trans people, or immigrants, or supporting Nazis, or what have you. Someone calls the community moderator on that content, and they go, "Read again. Slowly. Look at all these positive posts you're IGNORING."

Do you not understand how online communication works? This person was not referring to those other posts, so you bringing them up and acting all self-righteous about it just seems kinda silly and ridiculous. It's like pure rage bait behavior, but it seems like you actually believe it. They don't have any issue with those posts, didn't bring them up, and they don't excuse the harmful content you're hosting. I don't understand why you think the existence of positive posts makes the negative ones okay, or why you have a bizarre expectation that they have to weigh in the non-hateful content when judging the hateful.

"This user just posted Nazi apologia, but they have a different post supporting gay marriage so it must be okay!" This is what you sound like.