Skip Navigation

  • For there to be a meaningful criticism to be made against people who don't adopt, adoption would need to be accessible to folk who want kids.

    In Australia, queer folk have only been able to adopt since 2017. Even for the straight folk, accessing adoption is next to impossible for most folk. It takes years and lots of money, and it involves the couple (only couples, not singles) being greenlit by the birth parents, which means queer and racial bias is another hurdle.

    In theory, you can do international adoption, but that has to be by the books, or the adoption isn't recognised. And and that means dealing with the adoption systems of two countries. It takes time and even more money that adopting locally, and most countries don't allow same sex parents to adopt.

    Visualize a bunch of children. Some are on the streets and some are in foster care centers

    Kids on the streets can't be adopted. The system doesn't work that way.

    And kids in the foster system can rarely be adopted. It's sometimes possible, but if adoption is your goal, fostering isn't the way to go about it, because most of the time, adoption won't be possible. Mostly, foster kids get moved around, and returned to their birth families after a period of time. Fostering is laudable, but it's not adoption.

    And all of this altogether means that the adoption system is inherently biased towards rich, white straight couples. If that's not you, you're effectively locked out of the system. And on top of that, it doesn't even help the kids in your hypothetical scenario

  • I mean, I'm impressed that someone had the time to thoroughly try out all of those distros in two months to enable a meaningful comparison!

  • Well yes, that was my very point :)

  • Using this approach, everything that can't be disproven must exist

  • As soon as Jellyfin allows downloads for offline viewing

    Time to jump ship then...

  • Jellyfin has had sync play for a long time

  • That's what the different sorting algorithms are for. Trying sorting by "active" or "scaled" and see how it goes

  • Sure, if you fall out with a group, you might end up shifting your views when a new group you join sees things slightly differently. Lots of progressive groups fight and argue with each other over the specifics, and it often gets quite heated. But that's not the same thing as radically shifting your moral compass to point in another direction altogether.

  • Photography, and if we want to stretch the definition, storytelling (medium agnostic)

  • But whenever I get downvoted and shouted down for voicing an opinion that aligns with conservatives, or simply isn't "leftist" enough, it makes me want to distance myself from "leftist" ideology and adds to my disillusionment.

    Why does disillusionment with the people involved in a movement influence your opinion on the ideals behind the movement?

    Should the idea itself be bigger than the people that espouse it? If empathy and compassion are worthy goals, you don't just give up on them because other folk don't display them. If rejecting sexism is a worthy goal, you don't dial up the sexism because some folk think you don't go far enough in rejecting it.

  • Yeah, it does

  • Weirdest

  • That's an instance ban. Instance bans automatically issue community bans for local communities the user has been active in.

  • No one was banned for not rembering drags pronouns or for accidentally getting them wrong.

    People were banned for dismissing the validity of neopronouns or for deliberately and repeatedly getting pronouns wrong.

  • It's 222-2222. I got an answering machine that can talk to you

    Otherwise, you can reach me on 867-5309. Ask for Jenny

  • Downvotes aren’t how you address racists and bigots. Banning them is.

    Downvoting is a tool that racists and bigots use when they’re trying to avoid getting banned though. On top of that, most targetted groups are minorities, which by definition, have small numbers. All off which means that the impact of downvotes hits vulnerable minorities harder than it hits bigots.

    To you, this is some sort of hypothetical ideal that you’d like to see. In your mind, if things “worked the way they should”, downvoting would be a useful tool. But things don’t work the way the should. They work they way they are used, and in this case, that means they often hurt vulnerable groups more than they help them, despite how it ‘should be”

  • In your analogy, downvotes aren't the tool. Social media is the tool. And turning off downvotes is how we use that tool to match our needs.

  • Well, that article succesfully turned me off even trying the game… It’s a list of immersion breaking stuff that makes it impossible to forget it’s just a computer game…

  • But you surely agree that both of your statements to be are at odds with each other.

    You can’t simultaneously claim that an increase in diversity leads to a “reduction in richness” of a work, whilst also claiming that the work itself is the problem if it lacks diversity.

    First, you are claiming that good works are diminished by after the fact alterations, but then you also claim that after the fact alterations are a bad idea, because the work was never good in the first place if it lacked diversity.

    It more looks like you are finding post hoc validation to support something you already believe, rather than explaining the actual reasons you believe it, because those reasons contradict each other

  • Same with b.zone