Thank you captain !

We mostly drink beer or shandy, and we use caps as minis, you can have multiple colors for teams and write letters/numbers inside to identify them But it requires to drink before any fight happens, so we always keep some stored from previous session, just in case For the food, thins that can easily be shared so pizzas like you mention, crepes, or raclette in winter

I see what you mean, in your case as well as mine, Reaper is far more powerful and so far more adequate to our needs But people do not always search for powerful software. Sometimes they only want something easy to learn, with only basic tasks but well performed and entirely free. When you have these requirements, Audacity is better

I get that there is lot more nuances than russo-ukrainian, but imo there is a lot more similarities than you seem to imply : both Russia and Israel claimed that the land belonged to them before, that they should get it back, and use violence to kill local people who tried to resist or move them. The only difference is that Israel did it with the help of western countries and partially according to their laws, so they get like an aura of legitimity, but the acts remains quite close.

I do not like when people basically do not accept violent behavior but accepts them when they are allowed by some law or authority.

(Also yes Hamas is doing bad things and should be held accountable in some way, just like Ukraine to my eyes. But still, for me it remains obvious who kills more, who steals more, who oppresses more)

I think there’s some point in exaggerating things where it changes the meaning of exaggeration. At first this cartoon seemed to me like a satire of conservatives, mocking their exaggeration by exaggerating it even more. Imo the problem with this being “right wing humor” is not that right winger actively believe what it depicts, but rather that they do not perceive how it’s so enormously stupid that it even ridicules right wing ideas. (Because here, you’re like “hey, leftist harassing their child like right wingers do is so absurd and implausible, haha”). Of course they could be very self-aware to the point that they could laugh at their own ideas, but i sincerely doubt there are much people able to do that in any political spectrum.

Eh, what you say is interesting actually. Still, imo it does not change any of what has been said prior to that, you still made a scene to complain about people “making a scene”, and you still complained “we have the right to talk” while defending someone saying trans should stop talking.

This being said and put apart, i can identify two points in your comment.

1. You do not think people should care about trans rights, because in your opinion they are not threatened, and they should be considered as anyone else.
2. You have a huge problem with children having access to medical transition. (Not said in a bad way, but given that half your message is about this very precise point of the whole more diverse notion that are transgender and transsexuality, and that it is “all (you) have to say about”, it really seems the main, if not the only, issue for you).

For the 1st point :

• There are two types of violence. let’s call them blind violence and targeted violence. First one can strike anyone, anywhere, both you and trans people. Second one can only strike targeted peoples and communities, like trans, and maybe groups of people you belong to, or are considered to belong to (religions, origins, etc.). It’s very difficult to prevent blind violence, by it’s very nature. But targeted violence is more easy to prevent, precisely because it’s easier to identify potential targets and potential criminals. Targeted violence is also more massive. That’s why people try to care about communities which are targets of violence, as trans are, and as many other are, sadly.
• You make a difference between trans rights and your own rights. What about that trans rights are your rights ? You have the right to change gender, you have the right to have medical help about that, and so on. Trans do not have more rights, you have the same as them. Just because you do not need it does not mean it’s not your rights. You don’t know where your life will lead you, maybe you’ll need it at some point.
• You seem to have a specific definition of “diverse”, which i don’t understand. I cannot really guess why you do not find Lemmy “diverse”. If you consider that “diverse” means a place where you can say you don’t like trans, well first you actually can, and then it’s not really what i would call diverse. To me, diversity is different from freedom of speech. Diversity -> you can produce “positive” things, meaning they have a meaning on their own. Freedom of speech -> you can produce “negative” things, meaning you can disagree with someone/something. To sum it up : imo criticism isnt diversity, it’s more on the freedom of speech spectrum. And in any case, you can criticize a lot here on Lemmy.
• I dont really know which are the “issues we should be up in arms about”. If your true goals are freedom, happiness and healthiness, well the actual fate of trans people should be your concern, because they are the target of specific violence so more violence than the average (happiness–), the right of switching genders is at stake in many countries (freedom–) and their handling by health professional is also in danger (healthiness–). There are others matters that are as important, and we can even say more important, i would agree on that. But why on earth would you argue that everything is going fine for trans people and that they should shut up, while on the same time saying you are defending happiness and freedom of speech ?

For the 2nd point :

• As i said, it seems very specific. Kid surgery is a hot topic, even in trans communities, and that is not at all what is the most important in trans struggle. So it seems a bit unfair to focus that much on it.
• You should not call medical transition “cosmetic surgery”, because it’s not what it is, it’s actually considered therapy, as it is meant to prevent bad effects on your health. Your body is not the only thing to consider, your mental health matters too. If you can help a kid avoiding suicide and madness thanks to medicine, it is therapy, not cosmetic surgery. (You can be against this kind of therapy though, but you dont need it to be considered cosmetic surgery to be against).
• As i said before, all kids remain equal in rights in this case. they all get access to the same therapies, and all are banned from cosmetic surgery.
• One of the problem people try to avoid by changing sex is gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the fact of having mental issues due to your body. So it is both a physical and a psychological problem, your body is in the heart of the problem, so changing it is one of the solutions.
• Still, you can say that for any ethics reasons you should not change a kid’s sex. I do not agree but yeah, sure, that’s your opinion. Is this one disagreement really enough for you to defend that trans should stop talking about their issues, that they are the real problem and that you are the good guy by telling them to shut up ? I mean, from a logical point of view, it’s obviously wrong, you cannot pass from one to the other. But i even struggle to understand how a single point like this can make you that much tired of hearing about trans. I must confess that i strongly suspect that though this is all that you have to say, it is not all you think, and that you have many more disagreement that you wish to keep for yourself.

Im sorry my answer is so long, i already shortened it as much as i could. Sorry if this a problem for you. Two things i want to acknowledge “quickly” :

• Being trans is not something you want or choose, as a lot of what you said seems to imply. It’s not just what you think, it’s what you are, and you have very little power about it, like our cis identity (i presume you are cis, sorry if not). This plus the fact that our societies are more hostile towards trans people makes it logical that they should deserve a specific medical care, because they cannot change how they feel by the only power of their will.
• All what you said is your point of view, and i respect that. I advise you to try and consider though, that it might hurt peoples. Not a lot of course, but that’s the problem with systemic hate : even little and peaceful disagreements, when put together, can become a huge moral burden. Of course the solution is not for you to shut up. Continue to express yourself. But if you just think about how it can hurt people, i truly believe that it can help you expressing your point of view while caring for the people it could hurt, and so making it less hurtful. And if you feel too overwhelmed by anything else, or too lazy to think about this, well, i happily admit that it’s not a huge deal, there are bigger problems out here.

Yeah, i kinda agree with you, social media violence is “not” violence, or at least a lesser violence. This was my point : trans are the target of true violence, while being tired of hearing about them is not being target of true violence. This asymmetry may be the cause of that much people disagreeing with you.

On the up/downvote origin, you are right, i did not knew it. Everytime i have seen it used, and so everytime i used it, it was as a like/dislike option. You genuinely are the first person i see complaining about it, so i considered you wrong on this, my bad. But the idea still remains in a different way : though you are technically right, maybe you still can consider that using up/down as like/dislike is a common thing to do.

On the Facebook point, i do not know. It is rather a “like” system than a “like/dislike” : there isn’t really a way to disagree with a statement (the “angry” emoji being the closest, but it just conveys that you are angry, not if you agree with the com or not).

Well, let’s take it as a personal opinion then. Now here’s mine : people seeking attention by complaining about supposedly attention seekers are double losers, first because of my judgment, and second because of their own judgment.

Do we really know ? Maybe they believe in our gods ? Maybe they believe in their god, and it’s the true one ?

I mean, you mocked them using the exact reasoning you criticize them for, like “making a show of being hated -> attention seeker”. But ok, let’s forget about that. You may consider that you are actually mocking communities that are the target of true violence, not just downvotes. Like they get hurt, killed, harassed, even by administrations and systems ? Maybe that’s the reason for your downvotes. And did you realized that this is really the main use of downvotes ? Just a quick way to react. If you agree/like, upvote. If you do not agree/dislike, downvote. It’s very simple really. Either you don’t get that, either you are mocking people for using tools the way they were intended to. Both ways seem dumb to me. If you want a place that do not allows this quick reactions that are up/downvotes, well maybe switch for other platforms that are not designed around it ?

Wtf is this argument ? Are you at the same time validating “Ugh trans people are attention seeker, they think they deserve it because people hate on them” and “Hey look at us, we are the heroes of this story because people on internet disagree with us” ? I know i already replied to your other comments, but it’s funny it’s the same in both case : you just do what you criticize other people for supposedly doing

Eh, in general i agree with you, but i think in this case it could be considered as “ironic”. Like someone complains “I’m tired of hearing about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”, and someone replies “Im’ tired of hearing complaints about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”. I think we all agree that the argument is not really good in any case, but as the second one was a reply, maybe we can see it as an application of first comment’s logic to itself.

Ok, if you want some info here is a little summary :

• Banning people condamned for bullying/hate speech from every social media they used for it
• Blocking websites (mostly porn) without judge’s approval, both physically and by forcing navigators/DNS to block it
• More ID checking to “protect minor”

And if you want details :

The current proposition of law is a melting pot of many Internet security subjects :

• preventing children to access porn
• punishing websites that host pedo porn harder
• punishing deepfake and ai generated montage (and montages in general)
• preventing hate speech and violent speech in all social media, including chat applications
• regulating the market of cloud storage providers
• regulating gambling and real-money video games
• preventing phishing

They have different actions at their disposal :

• Fines for website admins who do not comply
• Forcing websites to check people’s identity to prevent minor accessing harming content
• Forcing websites to ban some accounts suspected of illegal activity
• Forcing websites to try and block a suspected person (not the user) from using/creating any accounts on their website (for max. 6 months to 1 year)
• Forcing navigators, DNS providers and Internet compagnies to block any access to a specific domain for max 3 months, if this domain does not comply in (short) time to the administration instructions
• Forcing websites to mention the name and adress of any person or company that host their content
• Forcing apps markets to remove an app that does not comply to the administration instructions
• It would be mandatory for vpn ads to always display a message that says something like “Pirating contents harms artistic creation” (does not have a lot to do with the rest, but it find it interesting anyway)
• It would be mandatory for any content sharing website to stock datas enabling the identification of anyone who participated in the content creation
• Easier police raid in places where content is hosted (no judge approval needed, they just get notified of the raid)

Now, i did not hear from this subject a lot, mostly for the pornography part since we probably soon will have to show ID cards to watch porn. I remember that everytime there are more or less violent protests, government says it originates from social media and that they have to control social media to prevent violences. Most politicians i heard on this seem to not fully understand what is at stake, which is kinda usual.

Oh, okay thank you for clarification. I agree with you, sectarianism is to me one of the biggest problem in far-left groups. But I still think that this is not enough imo to justify that “There is no practical difference” between them and fascists, even if restricted to their behavior on those communities. Anyway, i understand this comment better now, thank you <3

An anarchist is fighting against military/police. A fascist belongs, or wants to, to military/police. An anarchist is fighting against people who hold some power. A fascist is fighting against people because of their religion or origins. An anarchist likes to vote and discuss. A fascist likes to follow orders. An anarchist tends towards decentralization. A fascist tends towards centralization.

This are only some differences but spoiler alert : anarchist and fascist are not the same. They do not act the same way, they do not think the same way.

I understand that you hate them both, it is your point of view, and it’s okay. But please, follow my advice : avoid trying to justify it with sentences as universal and strong as “There is no practical difference”, it makes the whole thing ridiculous.

In the end, saying there is only “one viable […] party”, and even believing in a party itself, are also part of the problem imo. If you truly believe in this sentence, no wonder why you dislike anarchists and why they probably dislike you. But does it imply that either you or them are fascistic ? And if yes, did you considered that it could be you, who are defending a single “viable” party as the only solution, hating on every other option ?

I’m not an expert but i learned about this at university one or two years ago. I’m not entirely sure of what i’m saying though, so take my word carefully and feel free to correct me.

From what i recall -and i think at least in western europe, i don’t know for other places-, before photography, it was quite expensive to get a portrait or a family portrait, mostly because of the time needed to pose. So it was something only nobles or rich bourgeois family could afford.

Then photography was invented. At first, it was mostly an amateur hobby : you had to be a handy(wo)man to get all the components needed, and in first times even to build your own device. There were no schools, no official degree, knowledge only passed from person to person.

So first “professional” photographers (i mean the first one to get paid) were not exactly professionals, most had no previous clients, or anything. Of course, their prices were much low than painters, so increasing number of people came to their shop. But it was for the most part “new” customers, middleclass people or families, would previously could not afford paintings.

So at first, they did not really stole painters’ jobs, they rather extended access to portraits to a new part of population. Now, when it became more popular, the less rich clients of painters tend to switch to photography : it felt modern, it was a kind of trend, and it was cheaper.

At that point, some of the painter’s client disappeared. But there were mostly two situations : big and renowned painters still got jobs, because noble people kind of considered photography a thing for common people. Modest painters, who had client amongst bourgeois, began to lose their jobs. I think that a part of them switched to photography at that point : i also think this is were photo editing began, because they could use their painter/drawer skills to erase or slightly modify the picture when it wasn’t “dry” (don’t know the specifics of photography at that time ^^').

So overall, if you compare like the XVII century and nowadays, of course painters lost their jobs. But from what i (think i) know, transition was pretty smooth, as it let time to painters to continue to paint for upper classes or to convert to photographers.

I pretty much agree with other people, not sure if the comparison with AI is perfect. But at least I think it might show that new techs mostly comes with two effect : replacing previous practices and creating new ones (or at least opening them to new people).

Ooooh ok, got it. Thank you very much for explaining !

Hey, noobie question here, I dont know much about fediverse, so don’t mind correct me :

Is it a good thing ?

I first had the feeling that it ain’t, but everybody in the comment section seems happy with it. My knowledge of the Fediverse is this :

• Federation aims to decentralization
• The aim beyond decentralization is to prevent one entity (like Reddit) to have too much power over the content created and shared.
• When Meta said they wanted to connect Threads to the fediverse, people seemed concerned and/or opposed to it. It seemed coherent to me as the federation with Meta was seen as a danger for decentralization, because a big entity could have access to the content. (I feel like I probably misunderstood that part though).

Now, I (personnally) consider that any state is as a big entity as big companies, and that we should feel as much concerned about their power over content and informations. This is of course debatable and maybe the origin of my misunderstanding.

So here’s my true question : do i miss any point in this, that could make me understand why you consider it a good thing ?

I’m not an expert on how the social media make money, but from what i know it is created upon the information they gather (either personnal information or content, that they can then sell to advertisers or thing like that). So the more data they collect, the more they are able to sell i guess ? And i think that because fediverse already generates data for free (and will do so more and more), people in the business of selling this kind of data are eager to get access it Only my humble opinion, not sure at all if this is theway it works