I’d like to note: neurodivergent people generally only become close with other neurodivergent people (NOT ALWAYS). neurodivergent people are a much smaller portion of society, and a lot of these people will be bullied or put down growing up and lose their self worth. EVEN IF they manage to regain their self worth completely, they generally have trouble communicating with people, and will generally have mild to negative social interactions. Now the people who have the most trouble interacting have to interact with 5x as many people since they likely would only become close with other neurodivergent people. I hope that’s obvious how insanely unfair that is.

Stuff like this is pretty hurtful to those people, because if this is all it takes for most people, hey I must really be worthless then because I’ve already done all this and I tried a hobby and I tried asking people out and none of it works! To those people, sorry you have to deal with this, you deserve someone who will be happy to be with you. I promise there are people out there that will value you specifically for who you are, even if they’re more rare. You can try joining things that you think will have people you’d enjoy hanging out with, whether that be playing games at a comic book shop or joining a dnd group, a choir, a band, or any niche interest you have (for me this is learning languages, and I met two of the coolest people I’ve ever met through that)

Lol what it’s someone being rude and getting kicked for it

You’ve probably seen this but this video is basically exactly why this is the case. I suppose the only path forward is for democrats to exploit anything they can and go even lower (like increasing the number of justices so you get a majority) and then both parties race to see who can exploit the constitution more. I think no democrat wants to do this because it would be insanity, but the Republicans have been doing it for years so there really aren’t many options left.

You can say this but when a republican policy is “drill for more oil” and a democratic policy is “focus on clean energy,” one is easier, cheapens prices, and has readily apparent effects. Many democrat policies are long term goals that people won’t notice, and might even hurt them in the short term, but they need to be done. Medicare will increase taxes, supporting Ukraine and not taking Russian oil increases prices, and most people agree these policies are good things. Yet what is the biggest complaint under Biden? Skyrocketing inflation, because the average voter doesn’t care about policy they just care how it affects their lives.

You’re asking for an impossible solution if you want the party of “this is a hard decision but will benefit us all in the future” to have the same draw as “here’s cheaper prices NOW, we’ll ignore the future.” Not to mention as you already said republicans will block any and all attempts at real change. It’s completely unfair that even if 90% of a democrat candidate’s platform is beneficial, that’s not good enough since they don’t have the short-term effects to wow people with. If democratic policies reduced prices and republican policies increased them (say, swap the stances on oil and climate), we could have a literal potato as the candidate and people would run to vote for it.

.world is also the most commonly linked instance on reddit, so half the time you’re just dealing with angry redditors. Generally every time I say “wow this is so disappointing to see” it’s a .world post and the other half of the comments are trying to fight back against them. I think it’s just the nature of online communities that they get more toxic as they grow.

You’re definitely dodging more toxicity than you are positivity with blocking .world, every time I’ve seen just the worst comment ever it’s from .world. There might be an app or way to block the comments but not the posts from an instance, since nearly all .world posts seem fine (you could ask in the app community on lemmy, they’re generally super friendly). Sorry I can’t give better advice. Me personally I just stick to the positive communities and only brave the .world trenches if I’m feeling up to it (and make heavy use of blocking toxic communities)

I’m sorry you had to deal with that lemmy is definitely a bit more wild in terms of strong opinions, some very cool people on here but also a lot of immaturity.

I’m not trans but isn’t that a normal thing to think before posting? I’m fine with saying to my friends “(wo)men have hurt me in the past, and it makes me less trustful of them” but I wouldn’t comment that publicly, since either I get weirdos saying “yeah I hate (wo)men too” or weirdos saying “the other sex does this but worse!” Either way they don’t get what I mean, so I’m going to be very careful with qualifying what I say. It’s a hot-button topic and it sucks I have to do that just to share an experience, but a lot of people are sensitive (myself included) to perceived attacks. I still get people misunderstanding it, but that’s usually 1/100 instead of 1/5. It sucks that it doesn’t feel like a group of friends, but there are a lot of communities on lemmy that will ban people acting like jerks (lemmy.blahaj.zone for one)

This is why I use it, also the more people who use it the more accurate it is

I’ve seen the self-driving system and it’s about what you’d expect, very good in good conditions and struggles a lot in bad conditions. Still feels safer having a computer’s reaction time and awareness since so often people zone out, get distracted, or just lose awareness from being tired. Definitely nowhere close to fully autonomous at this point though.

This is 100% not true as I have personally had several times where I got ransomware (though still the thing I wanted to download somehow?) in late 2000s / 2010s. Hasn’t happened a single time since, even downloading the most sketchy torrents. For a lot of younger people, if they want to torrent something they’re not looking at trackers or much of anything, they just want the download. Windows defender used to be complete trash at preventing viruses so you’d need to know to download things like malwarebytes and be a lot more wary of what you download, and even if the torrent is 100% legit you’d have random registry/driver/software issues. Now these issues are rare unless you’re downloading some custom software or a much older game.

The one thing I would say was a lot easier back then is it would say “xyz free download” and it actually would be the thing itself instead of random bloatware.

I would say yes? It’s hard to quantify getting more people angry about their leaders not doing anything about climate change, and voting in/out people who do more rather than less to solve it. If anything it’s making more people curious enough to look into what she’s protesting over, rather than making people hate her and hence ignore everything she says and dislike what she stands for. To me getting people interested and involved seems like it’s the most change you can make as one person no?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg Or the people who go around getting signatures, but they don’t cause a ton of controversy so you won’t see them

Lol that is probably the funniest way to give a source I’ve seen

Oh I’ve seen I think all of the others, which is why this one was a little disappointing to me. The 2nd and 3rd videos in the playlist are something I think about a lot, where conservatives are taught all the deflection arguments and fake accusations so at no point do they need to defend the indefensible. I more just wanted to bump the post in case someone else comes across his channel and gets interested, since about 70% of what he makes are bangers

I felt like the content of this video was already pretty evident, maybe just because I’ve heard other creators talk about dealing with this same issue so often.

Sorry this ended up a lot longer than I intended lol

I went back and watched through most of the first season, and I really do find it strange, it’s like overtly left leaning text pretty often, but consistent conservative subtext. By that I mean they will have hodgins and bones saying “tax cuts to the rich instead of giving that money to poor neighborhoods like this so they stay poor, and minimum wage hasn’t budged in 8 years, and it’s even worse if you’re an illegal immigrant.” They’ll talk about people being gay and just treat it as normal but don’t ever show it on screen(I would say this is neutral/a little positive?). Bones likes rap music, they’re constantly asking “are you threatened by working with a woman?” and she knows martial arts and self defense and shows it off very regularly. Angela is very independent as well.

But at the same time, bones is consistently showing needing support from booth and angela (hardly ever the other way around), women are usually dressed in pretty revealing ways (angela and bones pretty consistently wear low vnecks), one episode someone plants a carbomb and they think it’s a muslim, then pretend “how dare we think it was a muslim” and then it turns out it’s his brother who is also muslim and says he did it for his god? Every time Booth mentions christianity it’s seen as positive and heartwarming for him or people he meets, and bones even becomes the damsel in distress and Booth has to rescue her, which makes all her punching and fighting seem irrelevant.

It’s very weird it feels like it’s all plausable deniability where they could say that’s just what we wanted to write an episode about (other than the Booth is a strong man who cares about real american values) I didn’t even realize they explained away brennan’s autistic coding by saying it was her upbringing, like that’s the only way someone could be like that (or with the autistic kid being autistic only because he’s >160 iq, otherwise he’d be normal).

.

I think the only things I would disagree with is, Bones didn’t become rich by pulling herself up, it was just because she worked as an escape, and then I think the writers just wanted to show that she is successful in everything she tries because she’s just awesome that awesome (possibly conservative coding?)

I would also say Bones feels in charge half the time, even more in charge than the administrator really. She’ll ignore Booth and all the laws and all the rules and do what she thinks is right, and then Booth usually ends up following after her (to protect her of course). The Administrator started off as above everyone but later in the season it feels like he’s their colleague who deals with the press and tells bones that she has to go with Booth sometimes. I think if you replaced him with a woman no one would really notice unless it was in the first few episodes. I also think Booth isn’t quite a perfect conservative American, maybe a perfect soldier, specifically because he will lie to people, do the wrong thing, etc, but it’s what his boss told him to do. At least that’s what it seems like, the writing for him and Bones are probably the most inconsistent in the whole show. Also the autistic kid, I think it literally was just the writers wanted to kill off a main character, and so they just decided on him because it was easy. To be honest if I was the writer I would’ve done the same thing, most episodes it feels like he doesn’t add anything unique or interesting, just a “look I’m smart.” Lots of interesting stories to tell with an autistic character, but if they don’t know how to tell them and it makes the character unpopular, time to get rid of him I guess.

Other than that I think you pretty much nailed it, I just wanted to say that I found pretty often the show is surprisingly progressive, just maybe not in the subtext of the show. It’s just such a weird mash-up of “look how progressive we are, we have a badass woman, the guy is getting bossed around” that somehow turns into “the strong man learned to do the right thing and also saved the woman.” I think since Booth is always in focus and always showing he’s a strong conservative man, they can get away with saying whatever they want, because the progressive words don’t matter, what matters is how it feels. (Note this is all based off season 1, later seasons they definitely lean in to what the fans want and a lot of conservatives were definitely watching)

I find this happens any time I engage with anything anyone on the right also likes watching, like a gun channel, or a non-political video from a right leaning channel. I think the algorithm is just saying “I saw a republican watch this once so if you watched it there’s still some chance you’ll engage with this right wing content.”

I think it pushes it so heavily because it’s a gold mine (to the algorithm) since content by those channels is so heavily consumed.

I would rather say we should make it illegal to do things that cause an inordinate amount of suffering to animals. I would prefer not to kill the dog either, but since most people in this thread seem to believe a vegan diet with supplements is impossible for carnivore pets, what other option is there?

Personally I see some difference between a dog and a human just as I see a difference between an ant and a dog, probably based on how consciously aware they are. Obviously I would hope to have legal or social consequences for people who eat meat. However If I had someone who would pay someone else to torture 1 animal a day, and then eat it, meaning ~30,000 animals would be tortured throughout their life, and I have no way to make them stop besides killing them, what is your proposed solution? I want to hear the non utilitarian answer to this problem, in this hypothetical where killing them is the only way to stop the behavior.

The most “moral” thing to do would be for vegans to make it impossible for factory farming to exist, but veganism is still a minority and doesn’t have that kind of power. You’ve baked in that the only options are “kill people who eat meat” or “do nothing.” In a situation where all humans were strict carnivores, that’s a much harder question. Should someone be allowed to exist when their existence relies on the suffering of others? I don’t know and luckily I don’t have to know because we can stop factory farming without killing anyone, and put pets on a maybe-suboptimal-requires-monitoring “abusive” diet, rather than factory farming millions of animals for them.

e: this is basically just a more complicated version of the trolley problem, would you kill one person to save 4 others? what about kill one person to save 200 animals? I guess if you don’t value animals at all, you would never kill the person. For me, yes at some point there would be a limit, where that is it’s hard to answer.

Yeah I think it’s just some people are not trying to “communicate” rather they’re just doing it because it’s fun for them (and some others). Sort of the “talking because they like to talk.” I used to also be pretty annoyed by it but I had a friend use them all the time and sort of just got used to it. Even if it did still annoy me I don’t like to ruin someone’s fun, so I’ll just be a bit mad and carry on (and then complain to other people it annoys)

Is this meant to prove or disprove it?

There are some commercial vegan diets available which have synthetically made nutrients to replace those found only in animal based ingredients.

There may also be some that do not meet the safety and nutritional standards of other types of food. Manufacturers should provide information to show it is nutritionally complete and balanced. This information can be difficult to find and understand, so it’s important to speak with your vet for advice too.

If you want a real answer, ethically you should not have gotten a carnivore in the first place and reduce the demand for carnivore pets. After that it’s just a math problem, how many factory farmed animals will that dog eat throughout it’s life? You won’t like this answer, but what’s more humane, euthanasia of 1 dog, or factory farming of ~4 animals (who had lives anywhere from constant suffering to just slightly suffering) throughout it’s lifespan.