Azzu @ Azzu @lemm.ee

Creator of [LULs](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/469273-lemmy-universal-

---

Read more

Posts

15

Comments

1,221

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yep, totally understandable from my side :)

Of course it is okay to threaten harm to people. "Policing speech" is exactly that, "threatening harm to people". If you police someone's speech, the implied threat is something like "if you don't change your speech, I'm going to make your life harder/remove certain benefits from you/reduce your social status", all of which is "harm".

I have 2C wireless and there is no Bluetooth to be found.

There is no "hook" though. We shouldn't be fighting against each other.

Every person has a different level of personal sacrifice for the greater good that they are ok with. It is completely fine to be selfish. If that means that we're fucked as a species, then that's what that means.

If we militantly blame people for still eating animal products for example, it'll just create hostilities that are further entrenching the sides. Instead we need to push to compromises, everywhere. Make animal products more expensive, using the tax or whatever to offset their carbon impact. People that still want to buy it can buy it. Or say it'd be best to not eat animal products, but if that's too hard, how about just a little less, however much is acceptable.

It's not optimal, absolutely true, but it has a much higher chance of working.

That's why I wrote my initial comment.

They both need to acknowledge that they're unreasonable. Dropping the metaphor.

It's completely understandable that one person has trauma regarding gender and thus unreasonably feels offended by an innocuous word like "dude". And thus, if you respect that person, it's totally reasonable to try to accommodate them and not use "dude" when possible.

At the same time, the person requesting it needs to be aware that their request is unreasonable in the way that you just described, and thus it'd be reasonable for them to say "please don't say dude to me, but if you can't, it's not that bad because I know this is my issue to be so offended by an innocuous word".

Definitely.

I just thought it important with my comment to counteract the sentiment of "fuck what the person that is wrong feels". That is exactly what is causing the resistance most of the time. Yes, sure, they shouldn't be saying "dipshit" to that other person. But telling them it's no problem when they themselves know that it's a huge problem for them is just antagonizing them, effectively.

No, it was not only placing blame on individuals. That is your interpretation of it.

I think what people mean when they say this is that they are looking for the same price point as the equivalent Windows device... I don't know all these companies but every time I looked for a Linux PC/laptop it was 25-30% more expensive than the equivalent Windows thing.

But who else is to blame? Seriously...

Where do you think these 57 companies get their money from to continue doing their shit? By individuals buying their shit.

What do you think these 57 companies consist of? They employ hundreds of thousands of individuals. Each of which could theoretically decide not to continue with that.

Of course I realize it's not that easy, individual situations may be complex, and that there's different amounts of blame to go around. You're correct, these companies have concentrated blame to them and it'd be more impactful to regulate them specifically.

But my statement is simply also true. Multiple things can be true at the same time. Multiple courses of action can be reasonable.

As I've already said multiple times, that is the reasonable approach. For some reason everyone thinks I'm for the continuing of people being called dipshit in this situation.

that’s solved by them not looking at me.

That's exactly what I'm saying here. The one that doesn't want to be called dipshit should remove themselves from the situation where they're called dipshit, i.e. cut the person out of their lives.

I'm not offended, I'm just saying that policing someone else's speech is the same as asking them to leave your general vicinity, i.e. not particularly reasonable.

It doesn't cost nothing though.

If a person habitually calls everyone "dipshit", they need to pay close attention every time they speak with that person, making sure to think about every word coming out of their mouth and making sure none of these is "dipshit".

Just try speaking to someone and never using "the" ever, it's incredibly hard. If you're used to speaking in a certain way, it's very hard to change and takes a lot of mental work. And it's ok if it's one word with one person... but what if everyone decides a word or multiple words isn't fine to them? It gets harder and harder.

This is not a complete non-issue like it's being treated.

I don't want you to walk next to me on the street. The view of you pisses me off.

Is that wrong? Or am I allowed to tell you where you shall walk?

If the person truly doesn't mean no offense with "dipshit" but you still take offense from it, that's what I'm talking about.

Same as walking on the street, if you don't want to see the person, just don't go on the street close to them. If you don't want to hear something they're saying then don't speak to them, avoid them.

I already said that if someone doesn't want to be called dipshit, then there's no reason to keep calling them that.

Ideas are incredibly cheap. It's absolutely unlikely that no one ever had your idea. It's even likely that someone had your idea and it failed, and you don't/can't even know about it because no one bothered to record the failure.

Other people have mentioned all kinds of ambitious/proper ways to do this. I've got a different view: if you truly think this will work, do a basic version yourself.

Learn basic blender, design 3D printed parts yourself and let someone print them. Use some app builder and tutorials, or hire a programmer for a very rudimentary prototype work. Buy generic electronics. Just get it working once. Then show it to people, let them use it, ask if they would buy it, preferably let them sign a slip of paper not to talk about this product or compete with it (there are standard NDA/non-compete contract clauses online available) or talk to people you can trust.

If you do all this and get positive feedback, then you can start doing this properly and get more people on it, like the other commenters mentioned.

No. Just no. You're talking about perfectionism basically. Who cares about continuing maintenance? If you get the product out there and working enough to last the 2 years warranty, you're completely fine. One programmer is perfectly capable of learning the most basic things about the disciplines you mentioned, it doesn't need to be good, it just needs to do its job mostly.

You have no clue about the scope of what this guy's idea is since he gave no info. Maybe it's so simple not even one programmer would have to work on it for very long.

Of course, what you say is perfectly possible to be "correct", but you just have no way of knowing.

I think both is problematic.

If you know that dipshit is not meant in a harmful way by the other person, then why do you care being called it?

Same on the other side, if you know the other person wouldn't like to be called dipshit, why would you call them that?

I really think they both have problems that they need to address within themselves.

"me reducing my carbon emissions won't change anything" said ten million people.

Dating requires incredible mental resilience. People are traumatized. People are selfish. People are rude. People are struggling. You will have to be able to deal with all kinds of unpleasant behaviors.

Most of the time, these unpleasant behavior have literally nothing to do with you, because people are just self-centered, the hero of their own story, not seeing others as truly equal, putting you into neat little boxes you don't really fit in, or so many other reasons.

Even if you're the most perfect person in the world, literally the most attractive, literally with perfect people skills, you'd miss out on at least 70% of connections just because of the random shortcomings of the other person or tertiary events. So you have to be able to deal with the fact that most interactions will not work out.

But for your and everyone's psyche, every failure is a blow to the ego. So you will always get more blows to your ego than getting it stroked with a success. So it's completely natural to feel like you do, that there's an issue with you. But it's just simply not true.

The only way to do this dating thing is do it exactly as much as you can handle another rejection. Optimally, you'll be so comfortable by yourself that you literally don't care about rejection, because you're so comfortable already anyway, so why should a rejection matter? You'd just return to being comfortable alone.

I mean, meh. I never would've gotten together with people if I hadn't just followed whatever they were comfortable with. I wrote for like 3 weeks about the deepest shit before I met up with someone, still together with that person. With others, I do exchange 3 messages and then meet up.

It's more about genuinely being interested in the other person, getting them out of their "shell", i.e. talking about what they truly want, by being truly open yourself. So in a sense what you say is true though, if you wanna meet, you should tell them you wanna meet.

I've also been successful re-establishing "ghosted" connections just by saying what I feel like "huh I thought we had a good connection here, apparently I misjudged that, anyway, hope you have a good one :)"

Of course there'll be many where you're just too different to build a connection, too incompatible, or just too much unrelated shit getting in the way. But there's just no single script to follow. Except just saying what you want/feel, and truly listening.

It's already unique. I can't get what I get here anywhere else.