Someone went out of their way to create a bespoke response for when a user blocks an NSFW community. It immediately asks you if you'd like to block all NSFW or just the community in question. There is no other subject given similar treatment.
I may want to stay on the instance I'm currently on and occasionally poke fun at notions like this, because that's a good way for me to help better frame my thinking and share it with others. Even if it's in a silly place like showerthoughts.
If a product creator's ideologies are the deciding factor on whether you use that product... That's OK. I think there's some interesting territory for conversation with that attitude, but I'm sympathetic.
But just say that. It's enough reason to not use something. Stop there.
When you have to also make a bunch of bad faith arguments about the actual functionality that just don't hold up it undermines what I think is the more valid (though still murky, as you pointed out) concern of supporting harmful attitudes.
Brave as a product seems fine. It's not the second coming of privacy jesus. It's not the absolute dumpster fire of browser purgatory. It's fine.
The commenter you're replying to is using a common English colloquialism: "go out." In this particular construction, "go out" is short for "go outside," which generally refers to the act of transporting one's physical body (assumed to currently exist inside a structure, underground, or somehow contained within some sort of boundary) to a location that could be considered exterior to their present location.
In the context of the thread, the commenter is inviting those making claims about the air temperature to experience it for themselves by exiting their current containment units and exposing their sensory organs to the actual air temperature of the external world, thus providing the counterpoint to their proposition.
This is a free news aggregator and news analysis site developed by a group of researchers at MIT and elsewhere to improve your access to trustworthy news. Many website algorithms push you (for ad revenue) into a filter bubble by reinforcing the narratives you impulse-click on. By understanding other people’s arguments, you understand why they do what they do – and have a better chance of persuading them.
You can’t just “it’s the right thing to do” in court.
How about outside the court? How about in discussions about the ruling? People are using those technicalities to justify the "rightness" of the decision and its effects. That's the bullshit bad faith I'm talking about.
Vll
A People's History of The United States, Howard Zinn
The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus
A Short History of Decay, E. M. Cioran
The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, Alan Watts
Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault
The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins
How Emotions Are Made, Lisa Feldman Barrett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q13uNlRXZrk
Someone went out of their way to create a bespoke response for when a user blocks an NSFW community. It immediately asks you if you'd like to block all NSFW or just the community in question. There is no other subject given similar treatment.
I may want to stay on the instance I'm currently on and occasionally poke fun at notions like this, because that's a good way for me to help better frame my thinking and share it with others. Even if it's in a silly place like showerthoughts.
Yeah, I don't get it.
If a product creator's ideologies are the deciding factor on whether you use that product... That's OK. I think there's some interesting territory for conversation with that attitude, but I'm sympathetic.
But just say that. It's enough reason to not use something. Stop there.
When you have to also make a bunch of bad faith arguments about the actual functionality that just don't hold up it undermines what I think is the more valid (though still murky, as you pointed out) concern of supporting harmful attitudes.
Brave as a product seems fine. It's not the second coming of privacy jesus. It's not the absolute dumpster fire of browser purgatory. It's fine.
Also, Librewolf ftw.
The commenter you're replying to is using a common English colloquialism: "go out." In this particular construction, "go out" is short for "go outside," which generally refers to the act of transporting one's physical body (assumed to currently exist inside a structure, underground, or somehow contained within some sort of boundary) to a location that could be considered exterior to their present location.
In the context of the thread, the commenter is inviting those making claims about the air temperature to experience it for themselves by exiting their current containment units and exposing their sensory organs to the actual air temperature of the external world, thus providing the counterpoint to their proposition.
For the beginning of the sentence, please see:
[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-brother-in-christ]
https://www.improvethenews.org/
This is a free news aggregator and news analysis site developed by a group of researchers at MIT and elsewhere to improve your access to trustworthy news. Many website algorithms push you (for ad revenue) into a filter bubble by reinforcing the narratives you impulse-click on. By understanding other people’s arguments, you understand why they do what they do – and have a better chance of persuading them.
How about outside the court? How about in discussions about the ruling? People are using those technicalities to justify the "rightness" of the decision and its effects. That's the bullshit bad faith I'm talking about.
Nah, send all under 18 to gulag. Make chip for computer. After gulag use chip to shitpost. Is circle of life.
That Alan Smithee has made a bunch of amazing movies
SLIG
Scifi Channel did one as a miniseries. It was... Not great.
🥇
ITT: A bunch of people "WELL ACKSHUALLY-ing" technical justifications for this decision. Pretty gross.
Wow. I didn't need another reason to stay away from the NMS Galctic Hub, but the universe provides.
Yeah they might be kinda anti war, not sure tho