deaf_fish

To live is to be cringe. Just don’t be a fascist.

This person needs to get help. I doubt more than one or two women are laughing at him, if there is anyone laughing at all.

Who has time to do this while driving?

Generational wars doesn’t do anyone any favors.

Everybody has different ears and their brains process sound differently. What might not seem very bad and chill to you can be extremely disturbing to somebody else and vice versa. It’s no one’s fault, life just sucks sometimes. Be considerate within reason.

I’m confused. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

Yeah! We need to make it really clear that we don’t care about the really big greenhouse gas producers, or the people that are a thousand times more wealthy and more problematic than Tailor Swift.

We just want to sound like we care by targeting someone who is comparatively not doing that much damage.

It’s all for the lulls after all.

I’m on a similar train. Once I get over myself, I’m going vegan.

You made it through the first layer of Anti-Communism propaganda. Congratulations!

Now here comes the next layer of propaganda. These so-called failed communist examples you speak of. Were any of them actually communism? Or were they just authoritarians calling themselves Communists to try to make people think they weren’t authoritarian?

I strive to be like Gonzo from the Muppet movies. That whatever is the very picture of the ubermensch.

I remember being young and making bad political decisions. If my generation got to do that why not gen alpha? I hope the legacy my generation leaves behind helps gen alpha elect the leaders that they want without being fooled by the lies.

Yes, but the difference is with politics things are more transparent and we have a choice. We can vote. With CEOs, we don’t get a choice and no one really knows what goes on up there.

It’s not that CEOs just happened to be evil. It’s a material conditions problem. Anyone who becomes a CEO has tremendous pressure to become evil. You could even argue that the steps you would have to take to become a CEO are morally problematic. So the pressure to become evil starts early. As soon as you enter the job market.

I still think a good chunk of the code will be visible. You can have all the code up to the point where you call the proprietary function. Obviously you won’t get to see what’s inside that function but you can guess. Also, a lot of proprietary libraries have that functionality really well documented.

Oh yeah, he could kill them all and then appoint a bunch of new very brave conservative justices.

It’s highly unlikely, but it’s funny to think about.

Only in so much as the Supreme Court decides that it is “legal”.

So the details are that the Supreme Court left it open to interpretation as to what could be considered an “Official Act”. If the Supreme Court decides your murder spree is an “Official Act” you are good to go.

So if the Supreme Court Justices are conservative when Biden goes to trial, then yes, he can be found guilty.

I don’t get the “take off your shoes” part. Is this a meme I have missed?

So the quality is worth the price of not owning the work you do?

I guess everyone has to make their own call…

A broken clock is right twice a day?

It has its usages. Unfortunately, the market pressures are going to require companies to use them in a way to make investors happy. The average Joe is probably going to have a bad time.

the context that lead to the statement being made in the first place.

But I don’t think that context is necessary to agree/disagree with the statement. What context could men’s feelings be more important that women’s safety?

i provided one in the above statement which was a very literal interpretation of that statement, which quite literally interprets the fact that your feelings sometimes provide negative influence to your perceived safety. To use a specific example here, you may have a fear of heights, which leads to you feeling “unsafe” at heights, even though it’s a psychological adaptation that you have causing it. Although in that case it’s pretty well understood to be a psychological adaptation of something, so that’s not a common thing.

Sorry, I was expecting something worded like “I feel less safe up high because I am afraid of heights so how can feelings be less important than safety”, so I didn’t catch your example.

Yeah, I think that someone could interpret it like that. But I feel like you could pretty easily explain that feeling safe and being actually safe are not the same things. Someone who is confused can easily be caught up and someone who is being malicious would have a hard time not looking silly. I feel like this level of confusion would have a pretty low occurrence count. So I feel like this specific confusion would be a reasonable risk.

If you say a statement and someone goes “yeah no i don’t get that”

My issue with this is that depends on the people joining the conversation. Also depends on how malicious they are. Like if someone didn’t know what “safety” meant. You can solve this by copy-pasting the dictionary definition of “safety”, but then then the next person who joins might not understand the concept of feelings, or not understand some of the words in the definition of “safety”. This is a never ending task.

I think a better way is to target a specific audience. You will lose people outside of that target, but that is unavoidable and will happen with any strategy. Hopefully some of them ask questions or for clarifications, so your message can spread to those groups. I think it is important to be as inclusive as you can be. But most people on here (including me) are doing this in their spare time. So it’s not like we have much flexibility to improve things.

That all being said, I think this meme was well targeted and effective. Did we solve the problem, no, that was never possible to begin with. But we did provide nice discussion about it. We let the extremists show off how silly they were. We let confused people ask questions and get answers. We gave the general public a good showing so they can decide what is right and wrong.

bringing it down to something like “safety is more important than feelings” is so inherently vague

In my mind this is as vague as the original post when it comes to the truth of the statement. The only difference is adding genders which doesn’t affect the meaning of the statement.