fracture [he/him]

hate speech (of which nazi speech is a subset of) isn’t political either. it definitely should be banned because it demonstrably causes people to get hurt

insane stance to be advocating that nazis should have free speech in 2024

god bless the people giving stool samples so often for the studies. FOUR TIMES A YEAR FOR SIX YEARS?? i did it once and it was awful. and more frequently if they got vaxxed or sick? i would cry

thanks for sharing this information with us, i think it’s important to discuss this stuff on the fediverse

i notice that beehaw doesn’t have a similar clause in its TOS, as far as i can tell. without the expectation of you answering this question, i’m wondering what the difference is between the two such that cohost has such a clause and beehaw doesn’t. maybe it’s because one is run by an individual and one is run by a small company?

i did a search on cohost itself to see if anyone else talked about this and found this quite extensive thread: https://twitter.com/rahaeli/status/1588769277053739010

so based on what you’ve said and what’s in that thread, i’m gonna update my post with some qualifications about cohost. thanks for piqing my interest in the TOS

is there a way they could protect themselves (“still legally be able to function”) without that clause?

it’s not federated or open, but cohost is a tumblr-alternative run by a group of queer devs who promise not to sell the company or your data. i don’t blame you if you don’t buy into it, but i do like the platform

https://cohost.org/rc/welcome

edit: based on what /u/FaceDeer@kbin.social has mentioned about the TOS, as well as further elaboration i found in a thread about it (https://twitter.com/rahaeli/status/1588769277053739010), i don’t think i can responsibly advocate for cohost, even as a closed/private alternative to tumblr

i, uh, hm. well, in a marriage, you don’t know if someone is exploiting your goodwill, but ideally you marry someone who you don’t have to actively worry about it e.g. someone you can trust

relationships aren’t a hard science, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t science about them. for example, you could check out the book, “a general theory of love”. or you could check out the work of john gottman on relationships and love, he’s done a ton of work on them

for more general information on like, how humans work, you can check out paul ekman’s work on facial expressions and the facial action coding system (FACS). i’d also recommend marshall rosenberg’s non-violent communication - i don’t recall how strictly research-based the work is, but he (until he died, anyways) and his org do trainings across the world in this stuff, and he has a phd in clinical psychology, so i… think… it has a reasonable foundation? (it’s been a while since i read it)

and of course, because trauma invariably deeply affects relationships, you can read “the body keeps the score”, which is maybe the foremost research based text for the layperson about it

sorry, i’m not sure how open you are to actually receiving this kind of information… it’s totally understandable if you’re not. i used to feel a lot like you, i think, kind of unsure and untrusting of others. and all of these things are things i’ve read and learned from that have given me a lot more confidence about interacting with other people in general

obviously, the knowledge itself isn’t enough, but maybe you’ll find it helpful nonetheless

yeah no, my post is closer to “there’s more than 0% free will” than “there’s 100% free will”. i definitely know too much about trauma to think it’s 100%. but trauma get so deeply ingrained, and it’s so cyclical; that anyone can break free, seems nothing short of miraculous to me. to me, if we had no free will, that would never happen

it’s insane to me that someone could understand the ramifications of trauma on neurobiology and conclude that free will doesn’t exist

i feel like, without free will, no one would ever escape their trauma. without saying something shitty and uncompassionate like “you’re only held back by your trauma because you’re not strong willed enough”; that’s not true at all

but i think, at it’s core, healing from trauma requires two things: a person who you feel safe enough to trust, and the willingness to take the leap and trust again

if you don’t have one or the other, you’re going to really struggle

and that moment where you choose to trust, how can you see that as anything but free will? when everything about your past, your nerves, your biology is screaming at you to do otherwise?

i dunno. i don’t think any of us would have grown past our trauma at all without free will

that said, i think there’s also just too much going on in the brain to conclude there’s no free will for sure. i guess that’s not the same as saying it’s deterministic, which you can’t really say, because physics gets too fucking weird at low levels, right?

anyways, i guess we can never really definitively say whether free will exists or not. but i think you can still make very strong arguments for being compassionate to poor people / traumatized people / people with mental illness / etc without saying we all don’t have free will. it feels a lot like saying we’re all doomed to be what we were made to be and we can’t make a better life for ourselves

it just starts with convincing people, and believing, that we all deserve that

really good little detective noir game. i think i finished it in one or two sessions. would recommend

the video game blurb rightfully points out the improved UX on point and clicks, which was a huge improvement on the formula i appreciated a lot

deleted by creator

thank you, i appreciate that. i’m one of those people trying to make it happen

it’s not a controversial take to say a message’s tone affects how it’s taken. could you explain why it’s so difficult for you to hear the request “could you be nice”?

or do you genuinely believe a message’s tone doesn’t affect how it’s received? because if so, i’ve been wasting a lot of effort on being nice to you, myself :p (that’s a joking tone, because it’s almost certainly not going to be obvious)

you can explain all of that and be nice about it, you don’t need to assume that people’s motivation is to “get theirs”. like you say, most people have grown up with several decades of propaganda, it’s not their fault they see unions as bad. it takes time to undo that stuff and it’s hard enough as it is without assuming their motivations or blaming them for something they had no control over

you’re not wrong, but you are being unnecessarily antagonistic, and i would appreciate it if you didn’t push people against unionizing by being antagonistic about it. it’s hard enough to get a union going without shaming people for not doing it sooner

people are already suffering at the hands of capitalism. you don’t need to throw it in their face. and, y’know, maybe some people from the game industry browse lemmy. it’s almost like they’re probably just people like the rest of us

based

also i’m sorry, having done a similar journey

what a great article, i went in to learn about plastics, and learned about myself instead

we need unions and unions need better protections than “can’t prevent layoffs”. unions need to make these painful for the company too

original i think https://www.deviantart.com/ptimm/art/A-New-Link-to-the-Past-551041132

at least explains why three inches seem to be cut off the bottom

do you have a better alternative than rumble? i’m assuming, from context, it’s worse than youtube

fr, you could nab a shitty used car for that much