Mama told me not to come.
She said, that ain’t the way to have fun.
Can’t you set up a Discord bridge on Matrix, so you can still participate at least in text convos? I did that years ago and it worked pretty well.
If that works, you can convince them one at a time since the switching cost would be lower.
Yeah, I also thought leaving Facebook would be a big deal, but honestly, it wasn’t. My family and friends send eachother texts and emails now, no big deal.
Exactly. I’m not trying to victim blame here, but I do want to point out that you can leave social media and still have a social life. It takes a lot of effort, but it can be done a little at a time.
For example, tell people you don’t check Messenger or WhatsApp or whatever very often, but you do check Matrix or Signal or whatever a lot more. If they ask, tell them why you prefer the other platform (e.g. less SM noise), and if they try it out, reward them by being super active on it. If you get enough people on it, try organizing your own events or whatever and communicate about it on your preferred platform as a sort of reverse network effect.
My SO is still on Instagram and sends me links occasionally, but neither of us use Facebook or WhatsApp (granted, WhatsApp isn’t very popular here in the US).
Honestly, I think you’d be surprised. I live in a very red state, and my work participates in the local Pride parades (free rainbow shirts, and a tent), and I see a lot more pride flags in my neighborhood than Trump flags. Granted, my company is in a liberal, but my neighborhood is in a very conservative area (usually 70-80% for the GOP candidate).
Of course, outward displays don’t mean as much as actual relationships, but it’s a lot better than people make it out to be.
We are pretty far from ideal though, but we’re largely moving forward (two steps up and one step back).
might use gas so seldom
So don’t put gas in it if you don’t need it?
if you want to go on a single trip, literally ever
Exactly.
We do a road trip about once/year, and our trips are long enough that renting a car for that specific trip is impractical.
We have two cars, a hybrid commuter (hopefully an EV soon) and an ICE family car (hopefully an EV soon). That family car isn’t going to be an EV until it can do >500 miles/charge, especially if refuels take >20 min. We rarely go that far, but when we do, we need the range because our trips are often >800 miles in a single day (usually only one actual stop for food, we pack lunches). Yeah, that trip isn’t very frequent, but it does happen and there’s no way I’m spending 2 hours of the trip waiting for my battery to recharge.
Our commuter, however, can absolutely be an EV, because the furthest it will ever need to go is about 100 miles in a single day (25 miles to work, 20 miles to the airport, 35 miles back home, and maybe a stop at a store). But it needs to be able to do that in winter as well as summer, and after a few years of ownership, so 150-200 miles is a better range.
Fair, but my hybrid (not plugin) gets about the same efficiency regardless of outdoor temperature, it’s usually around 45-50 mpg. While pure combustion engines likely won’t improve, hybrid systems can absolutely thread that needle really well and are a great option if you need range in the winter.
We currently have a hybrid and a pure ICE car, and we’re planning on replacing them with an EV and a hybrid. I’m not giving up my hybrid until EVs can go >500 miles on a single charge, because we regularly go on road trips of >800 miles in a single day, and EV charging infra is pretty spotty in those areas.
Wow, it’s been a long time since I had hardware that awful.
My old NAS was a Phenom II x4 from 2009, and I only retired it a year and a half ago when I upgraded my PC. But I put 8GB RAM into that since it was a 64-bit processor (could’ve put up to 32GB I think, since it had 4 DDR3 slots). My NAS currently runs a Ryzen 1700, but I still have that old Phenom in the closet in case that Ryzen dies, but I prefer the newer HW because it’s lower power.
That said, I once built a web server on an Arduino which also supported websockets (max 4 connections). That was more of a POC than anything though.
“free speech absolutism” consistently leads to spaces becoming hostile to marginalized groups
It’s not the free speech that causes it, it’s that “free speech” is being used as a weapon to tolerate intolerance. You can tolerate Nazi insignias in a bar w/o tolerating Nazis, you throw people out who are intolerant, and let those remain who are respectful. In fact, I would love to go to a WW2-themed bar with a mix of historical symbols and whatnot from all sides of the war (Nazis, Japanese Imperialists, Allies, etc) where nobody tolerates actual Nazis.
I want a space where I can discuss things that are uncomfortable without fear of getting banned. That’s what I’m after when I push for free speech.
for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?
I believe in freedom of speech, and I don’t think any particular phrases, terms, or verbiage is absolutely unacceptable.
If you ban certain words, people will just substitute them for others with the same underlying meaning. Look at how people dance around YouTube’s TOS to communicate the same thing without using certain words (unalive, “super mario brothers,” etc). Banning people for using certain terminology or discussing certain topics completely misses the point, which is eliminating intolerance.
this label is harmful
It’s not the label that’s harmful, it’s the intent and meaning behind it. Policies for a platform should be based on the root of the issue, not the symptoms.
“Hate the sin, love the sinner”
The problem is that people don’t actually do the second, they replace “love” with “pity.” Pity isn’t love, it’s intolerance. If you truly love someone, you won’t care whether they sin or not, you’ll just love them for who they are and want them to be the happiest they can be.
Whether homosexuality is a sin shouldn’t be relevant at all, sin is between an individual and their god, especially in Christianity.
The problem is that people justify their intolerance by misinterpreting or misapplying phrases like these. They think things like conversion therapy is a demonstration of love, when in fact it’s a demonstration of brutal intolerance.
The root of the problem here is intolerance, not the words we use to describe something.
Conversation Therapy
Ironically, this typo is exactly the therapy LGBTQ+ people need, and probably the therapy that works least well for people on the autism spectrum.
There are a lot of treatments available. For LGBTQ+, the best treatment is probably social acceptance, followed closely by body modification. For people on the autism spectrum, it’s finding a lifestyle that plays to their strengths rather than expects them to conform to whatever is “normal.”
The problem isn’t with definitions, but intolerance. Certain groups refuse to acknowledge that there’s more than one way to solve a given problem, and that more effective and compassionate solutions are valid. If we assume that, for example, homosexuality is a “disorder,” two possible treatments are:
I’m not even sure the first is possible, but the second is absolutely effective. Why default to the harder, unproven option when the second is so effective? The problem here isn’t definitions, but intolerance, but unfortunately tolerance is much harder achieve and changing words is relatively easy.
Look at these noobs not using a private window at minimum.
I think I saw that at Disney World as a kid as my first 3D experience.
I don’t know if they’re shot in 3D, but I enjoy the nature and science movies shown at my local planetarium. There’s nothing gimmicky about them, just subtle depth.
I’ve encountered people disagreeing with ASD ending with D
But shouldn’t it though? According to Webster on disorder:
an abnormal physical or mental condition
And abnormal:
deviating from the normal or average
So something being labeled a “disorder” doesn’t mean it’s “bad,” it just means it’s different from average, and in many cases a cause of distress or discomfort. Not all disorders need to be fixed, they can often be treated by simply accepting them and working around any issues it causes.
The problem here has nothing to do with definitions though, it has to do with harassment and intolerance. Whether being LGBTQ+ or on the autism spectrum is a disorder or not is completely irrelevant, what matters is how we treat each other. If you’re harassing another person, you’re in the wrong, regardless of what the other person is, has, or has done.
Again, let’s go back to Webster about “harass”:
to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
The law (largely irrelevant in SM though, up to a certain point) defines harassment as having real damages and intent to inflict harm. If you say being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness because you know it’ll cause harm, then you’re guilty of harassment and should be ejected from the platform. If you say it because it’s topically relevant and you’re not intending to cause harm but it happens, then I argue you aren’t guilty of harassment (and you should probably apologize).
The real issue here is intended and actual impact of statements. It doesn’t matter if your speech is factual, what matters is the intent and the result of that speech.
I’m not a psychologist, psychiatrist, or any form of therapist, so I’m not going to take a hard stance on whether any given thing is a disorder or not, I’m going to stick to answering my above questions. And in my case, accepting LGBTQ+ and people on the autism spectrum costs me exactly nothing and helps improve outcomes for them. So why shouldn’t I do that? What harm could possibly come from me being nice?
As a libertarian, I love the saying, “your rights end where mine begin.” You can say whatever you like, up until the point where it starts violating my rights. Harassment violates my rights, and if you harass me with your speech, regardless of the actual content, you should be silenced on that platform.
The way I see it, harassment has two parts to it:
If I offend on accident, I should have the opportunity to make it right. If I offend on purpose, I should be banned.
Speech on Facebook/Instagram/etc can constitute harassment, which is a rights violation. That said, harassment has two parts to it:
The second is harder to prove, but fortunately social media has a lot of samples to pick from to demonstrate a pattern.
I’m half with you. You can say what you want, but if you harass people, regardless of the content of your speech, you should be banned/silenced on private platforms.
Surely you could convince a couple. Find some cool rooms on Matrix and maybe you’ll get a couple more to join.