They’re not entertaining the idea; they’ve already executed it. Women have already been arrested for miscarriages in multiple states.

And here’s the itch.io link: https://minusonepublishing.itch.io/frontiers-of-the-mind

“…because you don’t understand sourdough”

Made me spit up my coffee.

Collective action can certainly be powerful. But your plan seems to have some pretty glaring holes. Strikes aren’t protected in the US for non-work-related issues, are they? And you’d have to decide when the strike ends, i.e. when a “good” candidate is proposed, which everyone will have different opinions on. Seems to me the better move would be to be pushing for a rework of the voting system into one that allows voting for other parties without throwing away a vote.

Likewise!

Ah gotcha; that’s helpful. That’s not been my understanding of this content, so I’ll have to look into that, thanks.

You say it’s a copyright license, and I think that’s exactly where I’m struggling with this. My understanding is that this is a license for something copyrighted or otherwise protected. Copyright protects things from their creation. A copyright license provides certain people action that would otherwise be denied by copyright. So are you saying that your understanding is that what we write here on Lemmy is copyrighted, with authors holding the rights? That would be helpful to know because that has not been my understanding of copyright (and I know country plays an important role here), so that would be interesting to look into.

Oh I clicked the link, mate, and read through a couple links deep. What I’m saying is that my understanding of the license is that it allows permissions for a restricted item, but it does not restrict an item with open permissions. You know what I mean? You need to be a rights holder of something that is protected by copyright or the like, and then you can use this license to open permissions in certain ways, in this case that the item can be used for non-commercial means. So this wouldn’t work with stuff on Lemmy, right?

My understanding of the Creative Commons licenses is that they are for providing permission to people to use something that they wouldn’t be able to otherwise, due to copyright or other issues. I don’t think the licenses are capable of limiting what people can do with something if it’s already the wild west, or do I have that wrong?

It’s a show about a retired Sam Spade, the detective from the Maltese Falcon.

Are you confusing what is democratic with what is supporting democracy? Democracy is just a system of government. A democratic country can nuke another democratic country and still be democratic. We could say they are not supporting democracy in other countries, but that’s not what anyone is talking about here.

Big thank you for writing all that out. There’s a lot of dynamics here I am not knowledgeable about, so I appreciate you providing links as well. I’ll have to read more on this before getting back to you. After your explanation, I have a much better understanding of the intended value of STAR. My gut is still saying that STAR will not allow 3rd parties into a polarized political environment, but I have no data to back that up. I just feel that people will vote 0 for the candidate they least want, 5 for the one they want, and 3 for the one they’re ambivalent about and that will devolve STAR to a two-round ranked choice that favors the two biggest political parties. Again, that’s definitely possibly me just not fully understanding the system. I’ll have to read more, crunch numbers, and see what numbers others have crunched and get back to you. Definitely very interesting and I love the concept of rating politicians independent of each other.

I may be off here because this is the first I’m reading about STAR, but it seems worse than instant-runoff ranked-choice voting because of the “top two candidates based on first results are the final two candidates”. It seems like ranked-choice but broken to keep the States in a two party system.

For instance: Let’s say there are 4 parties: blue, red, green, and yellow. Let’s say the majority of people have red (27%) and blue (26%) as their top pick, so those are automatically #1 and #2. Green is a close third (25%). The remainder (21%) vote for yellow, then green, then red, then blue. STAR would say every other candidate is eliminated except Red and Blue, and then redistribute the other votes. Instant-runoff would say: eliminate yellow and redistribute based off their second choice. In this example, all those votes would switch to green and green would become first. Then blue would be eliminated, those votes redistributed, and then you’d have to see what would happen. Instant-runoff to me allows for the opportunity for a meeting in the middle - everyone potentially agreeing on their second choice; while STAR seems like it will just continue to encourage people to put their primary pick up top.

I’ve played a few hours of Ender Lilies. It’s a metroidvania where you play a young priestess who is protected by spirits that you equip to attack for you. It’s pretty, has solid music, and the combat so far has been pretty fun and well-balanced for me. Grow the shame pile…

Saw the other comment about Linux and did some searching. Found it on Wikipedia; appears to be a window system for Linux or a protocol that enables a window system for Linux? Don’t know enough about this stuff, but here’s the link I found: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_(protocol)

…they’re talking about that ToxicAvenger person in this thread that you’re replying to.

Took a quick look at the first few messages and the links: seems like BiglyBT is banned by a lot of private trackers because it’s possible to mod it to spoof the numbers required to stay a member in the private tracker, while also being able to create a torrent file that allows others using the mod to utilize the private tracker without permission. Not sure if any of that functionality has to do with I2P.

I’m sure they mean fraud in the colloquial sense, not the legal sense.

I’m with you except for the therapist one. Ain’t no way the AI we have currently or anything even close to what we have now could be a therapist. The human connection is the #1 most important thing in therapy and being a therapist takes way too much contextual understanding.

For some reason, the mobile app I primarily use doesn’t allow me to see this comment or our entire thread, so I had figured it was deleted or something. But I happen to be on desktop atm and here it is! Must’ve just been something with the app. I’ll reply, but based on the vitriol in your comment, I think it makes sense that this be the end of our conversation anyway though.

In regards to your claim that I have said racism doesn’t happen on an individual level, that is simply not true. It’s possible I have not been explained my position clearly enough, but I am also running out of ways to explain it. Since our conversation is coming to a close, I think the best way to explain is for me to try and explain both our positions at once. Do let me know if I have misunderstood your position!

My position is that racism is the combination of prejudice, systemic oppression, and other social tools of oppression that work in tandem, which limits racism to being used as an in-group against and out-group and not the other way around. An in-group individual can be prejudiced against an out-group individual, and it is racist because of the social/systemic dynamics in play. An out-group individual can be prejudiced against an in-group individual, but it is not racist because it does not include social and systemic oppression. It’s my example of “an insult is not just an insult when that person is holding a gun.” My understanding is that you believe this erases the in-group people’s experience of prejudice, and that that is racist, in and of itself. My position is that your definition equates the two experiences when they are actually very, very different and is deeply invalidating of the experience of an out-group person for you to equate them.

Hopefully at the very least in this conversation, we have reached some understanding of our two positions! We don’t have to agree, of course, but I believe it’s important that we have these conversations and seek understanding above all. That’s why I was disappointed to see your comment that felt like you actually were not engaging with me with the goal of mutual understanding. If we all stand too firmly in our perspectives, we will never see others’ and can’t ever learn.

That gets to my last point actually. I don’t consider myself lucky that you have been polite up until this point; I consider respect the expectation. That’s why I think our discussion should end at this point. When conflict turns to insults and hateful speech, we are no longer in healthy conflict; we are now just in a fight and not working towards understanding or resolution. It’s funny because we both basically have the same position, if my summary of our positions above is correct; we’re just on opposite sides. You think I’m invalidating certain experiences by excluding them; I think you’re invalidating certain experiences by including them. So since you think that I am scum, a cockroach, etc., I expect that you believe I should think the same of you. But I don’t. It’s clear that care a lot about this issue, enough to spend time with a stranger discussing it to share your perspective. I appreciate you sharing your perspective on this, and I don’t think you should sell yourself short on your intelligence, mate.

Thanks again for the conversation up until the insults, and take care of you!