erin

There are leftist and progressive streamers making a lot of money. I would guess that more than half of streamers are not conservatives. Most successful streamers are very supportive of progressive causes and inclusivity.

It’s simply unrealistic and excessive to expect people to stop using one of the most accessible services that comes built in to most phones, and has features that cannot easily be replaced. All my privacy and data options are restricted in maps, but I’m sure they still collect some data. I have no intent though to stop using a service that is incredibly important to organizing and planning my life (traffic, community driven reports of detours, construction, cops, etc, weather specific reroutes, fuel efficiency route selection) because someone online has absolutely unrealistic expectations of others’ data privacy. Navigating to someone in maps is not the same as uploading a picture of them. Google sees my location and my destinations already. All that changes when I turn on my location tracking is that so does my wife. Your argument doesn’t make sense and is unreasonable.

Are you seriously arguing that navigating to someone’s house with Google maps is violating their privacy? When I do share my location, I’m sharing through Google maps, directly to my wife’s Google account. Google can already see my location for maps purposes. They have obtained no new information. If you are in fact arguing that using Google maps violates the privacy of anyone you navigate to, then I just don’t agree and can’t take you seriously. If you’re arguing that somehow sharing my location to my wife’s account in Google maps is somehow fundamentally different for privacy than using Google maps is already, then I just don’t understand you. You’re okay with people using maps but not sharing their location within those maps apps. That’s a very confusing moral stance.

This has nothing to do with the tracking. You should have the same problem with anyone that has location turned on in their phone. Turning on GPS tracking for me and my wife has not given Google new data on our locations, as we use Google maps to navigate as is. I reject the premise that I’m violating someone else’s privacy by doing so. I’ve also opted out of any app using my location without my express permission. You certainly wouldn’t have the right to ask someone to turn something like that off simply because you don’t trust the corporations on the other end, because you have no idea what service, what precautions they’ve taken, and if they’re actively sharing. If you were going to do so, then you should also inspect people’s phones for having location turned on, and check all their apps permissions for location.

There is absolutely no mayo flavor. I’m a mayo hater and this is also how I make my grilled cheese. It’s just a richer fatty flavor than butter, which just tastes like buttered toast with cheese (still good, just not as good).

Consensually choosing to share my location with my wife is not the same as not caring about my data being collected or sold. I don’t have any intention to break her trust, but that has nothing to do with why we share location. It’s all about safety and convenience. I know when she’s working late. She knows when I made it back to my car safely after a night out. I know when she’s on her way home, even when she forgets to text me, so I can start cooking. As two gay women in a conservative area, it just made sense.

My wife and I share our location. We both trust each other implicitly and neither of us consider it a breach of privacy, but rather a willing sharing of information. I think if this is demanded of someone unilaterally, it would be both a breach of privacy and trust, but it’s just so damn convenient for our lives and makes us both feel safer. If I’m out late in the city to see a friend, my wife can easily see that I’m safe making it to my car and driving home. If my wife is working late and forgets to text, I can easily check and know she’s still in the building. As two gay women, it was a no-brainer for us. I would never demand that of someone. It seems like a lot of people in the comments see sharing location as an intrinsically harmful or negative action, whereas it’s far more context and consent dependent for me. Hell, I even share my location with a friend for a few hours if I’m doing something sketchy.

Regardless of the stuff about Ada’s tone, it seems like your ultimate point was the classic “paradox of tolerance.” I certainly do not see enforcing a safe space as policing identity. Regardless of how respectfully done, deciding when it is okay to respect someone’s identity is against blahaj rules. The consistent moderation with no room for chipping away at the edges is what attracted me to the instance. This person broke blahaj rules. They may have broken it politely (I disagree. Tone does not excuse content), but they broke the rules. Banning them for repeated invalidation of others’ identities is not policing their identity. Your identity cannot be predicated on the invalidation of others. We have every prerogative to be intolerant of intolerance.

Again, regardless of Ada’s tone, the point stands. You keep dancing around that. The rules were broken. This user acted inappropriately for the space they were in. They are not forced to use blahaj communities, and chose to do so while violating the rules. They have no right to our safe space if they cannot ensure it is safe for others. I strongly dislike the “just asking questions” polite veneer of your comments while very intentionally dodging the elephant in the room, which is that the user did wrong for the space they were in, regardless if you agree or not.

I think it’s kinda weird to assume there are any intrinsic traits about large, diverse groups of people. There are so many Americans of so many diverse backgrounds, that I think any generalizations we can make are gonna be wildly off for a great many people. It’s certainly true that most Americans did not act to prevent the current administration. However, most Americans are completely uninformed, propagandized to daily, and held down systemically so they don’t focus on their oppressors. Blaming the people is easy. They should’ve prevented this. They shouldn’t have been complacent. It’s their fault for the radical individualism.

I see this happen constantly, whether it’s American, Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, Israeli, Palestinian, British, etc… people, being blamed for the evils, perceived or otherwise, of their government. Often, these people are only as complicit as an abuse victim is to the person that has controlled their life and worldview to suit their own needs. Their actions and beliefs may be malicious, they may be indifferent, or they may simply be ineffective, but they receive the blame that would be more accurately aimed at those controlling their sources of information and communities.

Blaming the system takes more effort. There has been a slow, insidious, and very intentional subversion of American and global politics for decades, and it’s handwaved away as conservative buffoonery and incompetence, which while present, is a very incomplete part of a larger picture. This isn’t an election that people didn’t turn out for. This is decades of the subversion of a democracy, the media, and a gradual pressure placed against the entire working class to keep the focus on putting food on the table, and a new culture war punching bag for each election season. I don’t blame Americans. I blame the fascists that have snuck into government on populist platforms, and the people that should have been in positions to act as the safeguards who instead rolled over and gave in to the corruption.

No one is immune to propaganda. I can only hope that we rebuild better.

This might not really apply to you and your beliefs, but I think it’s a discussion worth having and considering.

There are (were, I guess) trans woman competing. Why would their presence change their right to compete? Additionally, the studies are few and far between due to very low sample size, but there isn’t good evidence proving that trans women have a statistically significant advantage in women’s sports after being on HRT long term (2+ years). Most trans women that previously competed in men’s sports perform similarly compared to women after HRT as they did to men before.

The conservative “evidence” for trans women having an advantage is simply pointing and going “see!!” any time any trans woman places better than any cis woman, even if they’re well within the statistical range of women. If trans people are allowed to compete, are they allowed to ever win? In professional sports, getting lucky in the genetic lottery plays a large role in determining success. Katie Ledecky is incredibly successful due to her practice and training, but wouldn’t be nearly as successful without a body conducive to swimming. What’s the difference between a cis woman being born with broad shoulders and longer arms and a trans women doing the same? No one is transitioning for a competitive advantage. It’s a ridiculous notion. There really isn’t a good argument against trans women in sports that doesn’t rely on invalidating their gender or vibes-based cherry-picked pseudoscience.

I cannot see this as a valid and reasonable response to “we aren’t likely to see an AI powered socialist dystopia in our lifetime, if ever.” AI isn’t even profitable for the capitalists that run it, and needs to constantly feed off real humans to avoid decay. It’s definitely not doomsaying to see AI as a bubble and generally a grift as it’s presented now, when it’s likely to fit in a much more specific niche as a tool in the future. Art will stay uniquely human until AI can create without needing constant human training data.

If Fairphone and Pine both don’t meet your needs, then you can install a new OS on basically any android, though pixels work best. Even just getting root access to the phone opens up a ton of options for customization. There are communities on Lemmy that are all about this exact issue, though I don’t know them off the top of my head.

I don’t know if the format really applies. Complaining about one corporation stealing your data while using another’s product that does the same seems a bit pointless, especially when there are cheaper, better alternatives. The putting a stick through your own bike tire format seems more appropriate.

Andor was awesome. Considering that the fighters in Star Wars do aerodynamic flight and sound is not just added for effect but audible in universe, I’ve always subscribed to the head canon that in the Star Wars universe, space is a gas of some sort. We also see people in space that die of suffocation, not pressure shock. The name S-foils also implies a similar purpose to airfoils, but the canon isn’t even consistent on that. Some TIE models explicitly use their S-foils aerodynamically in atmosphere, but other ships are ambiguous.

High effort troll, though insulting people’s intelligence while sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich is certainly a strategy. Good luck with that and your fascinating approach to discourse.

Mission failed. Try responding to my longer message on its merits, instead of dismissing anything that causes cognitive dissonance.

Is this the one response you have to everything that challenges you? Imagine if you addressed the points being made instead of implying that the reason you’re incomprehensible is the reader’s competence, instead of your bizarrely antisocial comments.

How often is gut-feeling actually just bias and/or bigotry under the surface though? I feel like we shouldn’t use those gut feelings to make judgements, ever, without examining exactly why we’re having that response. The suspect might just be socially awkward or neurodivergent and that gut-feeling is actually just unexamined prejudice.

What on earth are you on about? I have no interest in being your friend or influencing you. I’m having a good time making fun of a troll acting ridiculous.

You seem like an insane person. Imagine a hypothetical community that has a bunch of positive and uplifting content, but about 10% of posts are just making fun of trans people, or immigrants, or supporting Nazis, or what have you. Someone calls the community moderator on that content, and they go, “Read again. Slowly. Look at all these positive posts you’re IGNORING.”

Do you not understand how online communication works? This person was not referring to those other posts, so you bringing them up and acting all self-righteous about it just seems kinda silly and ridiculous. It’s like pure rage bait behavior, but it seems like you actually believe it. They don’t have any issue with those posts, didn’t bring them up, and they don’t excuse the harmful content you’re hosting. I don’t understand why you think the existence of positive posts makes the negative ones okay, or why you have a bizarre expectation that they have to weigh in the non-hateful content when judging the hateful.

“This user just posted Nazi apologia, but they have a different post supporting gay marriage so it must be okay!” This is what you sound like.