Gaywallet (they/it) @ Gaywallet @beehaw.org

I'm gay

---

Read more

Posts

213

Comments

763

Joined

3 yr. ago

Moderating

---

It's hard to engage with such short replies. What parts confuse you? What do you need more guidance on? Is there anything else that is unclear about my response and how we value community around here?

I think she wants you to just rack up a bunch of medical debt so she can cancel it, gotta think in loopholes like the big companies

Beehaw may not be the right space for you if you're unable to consider context. Beehaw is explicitly a community, a safe space, and somewhere where context absolutely matters. We don't believe it's possible to have a healthy community where people don't see each other as complex humans. We talk about this, quite a bit in our docs, for example in the the doc titled Beehaw is a community we talk about how community is a necessary part of this platform and in the doc titled Beehaw, Lemmy, and A Vision of the Fediverse we talk about how we want to be more like a village than we do a train station (and link to a fantastic article about this) and that's a direct reflection of the importance of social ties and connections to running a healthy community.

I'm certainly not saying that you should leave, but I am typing all of this up because I need you to understand what our values are around here. Some of your content and your interactions have already been reported by multiple people - I mention this because I think it's a reflection of your attitude towards your purpose here and how you are interacting with the space. I've advised others to hold on taking moderator actions because I know adapting to and interfacing with a community and that this process can often be bumpy- we wish to give people good faith when it is deserved, but that is predicated on a willingness to engage in good faith with the community. If that is not how you wish to interact with social media, that is your decision and we will respect it, but this is not a place where we allow that kind of behavior.

Extremely based, good job FTC

Is that for sure right? I don’t know. I don’t really care. My daughter was happy with an answer and I’ve already warned her it could be bullshit. But curiosity was satisfied.

I'm not sure if you recognize this, but this is precisely how mentalism, psychics, and others in similar fields have always existed! Look no further than Pliny the elder or Rasputin for folks who made a career out of magical and mystical explanations for everything and gained great status for it. ChatGPT is in many ways the modern version of these individuals, gaining status for having answers to everything which seem plausible enough.

I use it/its in spaces where I do not plan on engaging with people as individuals

I see your pronouns on Beehaw are it/its, can you clarify whether you intend on engaging with people as individuals and if not how that shapes how you treat them?

To be clear, it's the first time the CDC issued guidance. There are other sources which already suggested that pain management is a good idea.

As much as I despise the current court, I would not expect them to rule in that fashion because this isn't an issue that's politically charged. Gorsuch is very much a letter of the law boy, so he'd rule in favor of existing law and the idea of making law more explicit if there are areas which can't be reasoned out. Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor are all pro consumer rights, so they'd vote against EULA applying super broadly. My guess is Roberts would also vote in favor of consumer protection given his track record. Thomas could probably be bought off, but IDK if Disney would want to be associated with buying him off. Then again Thomas is against regulation in general so he might be fine with EULA of any scope. Barrett studied under Scalia, so she'll probably be against because Disney is too woke. Kavanaugh tends to lean team Gorsuch when it comes to word of the law so long as it doesn't violate his conservative principles so my guess is he'd also be against. It could be a 8-1 against Disney with those numbers.

But perhaps more importantly, they'd probably just not even take it up as an issue, and leave it up to the lower court unless the lower court gave an absolutely wild verdict.

I hope Disney’s claim gets thrown out because I worry about the precedent this could set for EULAs going forward.

I hope that it isn't thrown out. I hope it goes to court, and the judge, in their ruling, outlines precisely why a EULA for Disney+ doesn't apply here - reasons such as a single month of service not constituting an endless contract, a contract not being able to apply outside the bounds of the service regardless of the serving entity, perhaps even some comment on the scope of the EULA and what's allowed in a legal contract (especially when it's presented the way it is).

There is a massive opportunity for a judge, biased or not, to make it clear where the bounds of law, as it is currently written, apply and do not apply in this case without making any major decisions about the scope of EULAs themselves.

Again, we are having this conversation in a Beehaw thread; if you don’t understand the significance of that then I don’t know what else to say.

Would love to hear your thoughts in more depth on this. What is the significance?

This rules! thanks for sharing

You should probably take that concern up with the author, who's title I used verbatim. But her name is also present in both the subtitle and the first paragraph of the article, so I'm a little unsure why this bothers you so much.

This is right in line with the other spots I’ve lived in the city (SoMa, avenues).

This is definitely normal for SoMA but down at 2nd st is approaching the financial district which is usually a bit quieter at night. I can understand someone who's just not used to it, or used to living in noisy parts of the city being upset or surprised about it.

But also 2nd/folsom is right at the bridge on-ramp which I would imagine is getting a fair deal of freeway noise 🤷‍♀️

hell yea that rules

beyond cringe

transphobia is not acceptable on this instance, be(e) better

Both it and they essentially come from gender neutral pre-english roots (proto-germanic and norse, respectively) and were used in these ways since their inception. Examples date back to Old English and you can find people using both to describe people (not always groups, but sometimes singular and unspecified). Adoption of the use of these pronouns in the personal sense, however, is a bit more difficult to find and likely something mostly lost to literature. Outside of a few notable figures and what pronouns they happened to use (such as the public universal friend), people were simply not important enough and having a personal journal was reserved for those in power and those who had wealth, so recorded history on a more personal level is much more difficult to track down. The idea that queer people didn't experiment with things like this hundreds of years ago seems far fetched to me - the few existing historical records we have of high profile queer folk seem to suggest that they did indeed experiment with language as a means to express identity.

While it/its is newer than he, she and they, I wouldn't consider a pronoun created in the 16th century 'new'.

ah yes, all of the zero grams of dietary fiber in beer, how could I forget