You're right and have shifted my perspective a bit.
I was thinking this seems a bit extreme, not because it's an overreaction but because banning the user removes that problem while preserving more content from the rest of the instance. But the goal of the instance prioritizes the safe space nature over volume of content, and they're not ambiguous about that. It's not what I'd do myself, but that's probably part of why it isn't my instance.
Or buy out of state. Seems like enough of these crazies don't have long term plans after the shooting, so another charge for the transport on top of the multiple murders isn't likely to dissuade them much.
If you want to get pedantic, you have to figure out how to be accurate. Breaking a sentence into bullet points doesn't make it separate claims. The word "and" means that for the sentence to be true, all of the components must be. You made one claim, with multiple aspects and evidence that does not support 2/3 of them at all.
I think the other user had it right, so I'm going to steal this one: stay ignorant friendo
This is what happens when you google something to support your made-up fact, rather than base your argument on the research.
Your claim was that this applies to most, but not all trans women. Your link provides literally zero support of that.
This bad faith, scientifically illiterate shit is why people are generally inclined to dismiss you as spewing ignorant bar talk and move on without trying to change your mind. Your stance wasn't set based on current, relevant research and therefore isn't likely to be changed by it.
Men have a significant advantage over women when it comes to strenght and speed and in most (but not all) cases this applies to trans women as well.
Nothing about your comments indicates a willingness to change your mind. However, your statement above is the first concrete statement of the thread, so it seems like the onus would fall on you to support the claim, rather than /u/astro_city@fedio.io to refute it. If you make factual claims without evidence, nobody's especially obligated to provide evidence to tell you that your made-up facts are wrong.
Okay, I updated my previous comment to "stupid or lazy" instead of just stupid so it more accurately applies your bunk assumption.
Assuming it's worth troubleshooting a broken just to interact with your salty comments calling people lazy because an email server isn't working is shitty and elitist, regardless of whether you want to hear that.
There's a lot of reasons to not use reddit, but the signup process is one of the first interactions users have with a site. Right now, reddit has a smoother experience than lemmy in that specific regard, and it's better to acknowledge than pretend otherwise.
I like how the bill defines "age verification process" but not "obscene device."
Seems like this this is "tobacco water pipe" instead of "bong" levels of trivial to circumvent by companies that suddenly sell an array of various sized tubular "back massagers" or realistic "artistic anatomic sculptures".
It's fine for memes, news, and politics...but it's still pretty lacking in a lot of the smaller and more unique content that made reddit worth visiting regularly.
As much as you're okay with it, there's plenty of people who would like to see federated services grow enough to be established mainstream alternatives. How much complaining has there been that Bluesky took off as as the trendy twitter alternative instead of Mastadon?
I don't see it as a defeatist attitude about their situation. It's more about how they heard lemmy is a viable alternative, so are checking it out. That first interaction is a test drive. If it's janky at all, it gives the impression that lemmy less smooth of an experience, so go back to the perceived superior site. Using the site that offers the smoother experience is what they're doing about their situation.
Premium subscription that allows messaging people out of your network and provides a bunch of analytics about profile/article views. I know sales, marketing, and recruiting people that love it.
You're right and have shifted my perspective a bit.
I was thinking this seems a bit extreme, not because it's an overreaction but because banning the user removes that problem while preserving more content from the rest of the instance. But the goal of the instance prioritizes the safe space nature over volume of content, and they're not ambiguous about that. It's not what I'd do myself, but that's probably part of why it isn't my instance.
Depends on the flavor of the research. I'm all for still dying in my 70s but also am for being relatively fuckable until the very end.
Or buy out of state. Seems like enough of these crazies don't have long term plans after the shooting, so another charge for the transport on top of the multiple murders isn't likely to dissuade them much.
If you want to get pedantic, you have to figure out how to be accurate. Breaking a sentence into bullet points doesn't make it separate claims. The word "and" means that for the sentence to be true, all of the components must be. You made one claim, with multiple aspects and evidence that does not support 2/3 of them at all.
I think the other user had it right, so I'm going to steal this one: stay ignorant friendo
This is what happens when you google something to support your made-up fact, rather than base your argument on the research.
Your claim was that this applies to most, but not all trans women. Your link provides literally zero support of that.
This bad faith, scientifically illiterate shit is why people are generally inclined to dismiss you as spewing ignorant bar talk and move on without trying to change your mind. Your stance wasn't set based on current, relevant research and therefore isn't likely to be changed by it.
Nothing about your comments indicates a willingness to change your mind. However, your statement above is the first concrete statement of the thread, so it seems like the onus would fall on you to support the claim, rather than /u/astro_city@fedio.io to refute it. If you make factual claims without evidence, nobody's especially obligated to provide evidence to tell you that your made-up facts are wrong.
Okay, I updated my previous comment to "stupid or lazy" instead of just stupid so it more accurately applies your bunk assumption.
Assuming it's worth troubleshooting a broken just to interact with your salty comments calling people lazy because an email server isn't working is shitty and elitist, regardless of whether you want to hear that.
There's a lot of reasons to not use reddit, but the signup process is one of the first interactions users have with a site. Right now, reddit has a smoother experience than lemmy in that specific regard, and it's better to acknowledge than pretend otherwise.
I like how the bill defines "age verification process" but not "obscene device."
Seems like this this is "tobacco water pipe" instead of "bong" levels of trivial to circumvent by companies that suddenly sell an array of various sized tubular "back massagers" or realistic "artistic anatomic sculptures".
This was more celebrating that a problematic email server was preventing new users from signing up.
Assuming it's because the user is stupid or lazy, that's the elitist part.
They're less funny to me when they're intentional/satire.
I appreciate you.
It's curious how so many people on this community about discussing the growth of the fediverse view the fediverse growing as a negative.
It's fine for memes, news, and politics...but it's still pretty lacking in a lot of the smaller and more unique content that made reddit worth visiting regularly.
As much as you're okay with it, there's plenty of people who would like to see federated services grow enough to be established mainstream alternatives. How much complaining has there been that Bluesky took off as as the trendy twitter alternative instead of Mastadon?
One could argue that proposing this bill has incited me to try IPTV now, before it becomes more risky to do so.
That's the sort of gatekeeping that keeps a service as a tiny niche forever.
I don't see it as a defeatist attitude about their situation. It's more about how they heard lemmy is a viable alternative, so are checking it out. That first interaction is a test drive. If it's janky at all, it gives the impression that lemmy less smooth of an experience, so go back to the perceived superior site. Using the site that offers the smoother experience is what they're doing about their situation.
Are we great again yet?
Premium subscription that allows messaging people out of your network and provides a bunch of analytics about profile/article views. I know sales, marketing, and recruiting people that love it.
Which makes now the best time to get a firearm if you're considering it. Just be sure to sign up for some training classes too.
I'd vote for that ticket.