🦊 OneRedFox 🦊 @ OneRedFox @beehaw.org

Posts

1,909

Comments

282

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Good, hopefully it keeps tanking so we don't have to pay any further mind to it.

We did have people developing a new browser engine. It was called Servo and Mozilla went and killed the project.

Maybe it just wasn’t going anywhere and they didn’t think it was right for Firefox, maybe it was experiment for experiment’s sake, maybe it was always destined to be a side project. I don’t know.

Servo was an experimental browser engine for Mozilla that they were using as a testing ground for their investment into the Rust programming language; the project did bear fruit as components were slowly integrated into Firefox starting at version 57 with Project Quantum. They did eventually complete that transition and everyone using an up-to-date version of Firefox is using various Servo components (I'm personally a big fan). Unfortunately, when COVID devastated the economy Mozilla axed some of their side projects, which included Servo itself. Maybe we'll see further investment in the future, but they did already do what they wanted to with it for the most part.

Bots like that one that changes YouTube links to Piped are good, as are bots like a metric/freedom unit converter. A well done meme bot could even be good. I just don't like the ones that pretend to be human.

That will be the case until the boomers are adequately bellcurved. Local and downballot elections are a more important and fruitful endeavor anyways despite the fact that people just really don't want to pay attention to them for whatever reason.

It's all good.

You can put cat ears on your avatar and they wiggle when you hover your mouse over them.

It has the better feature set and UX. Some things I like:

• Threaded comment replies (though they display differently from Lemmy's).
• Antennae for discoverability.
  • Can use hashtags AND keywords.
  • Can filter results by instance.
  • Can create multiple timelines to display content in.
• Customizable UI via widgets.
• I think the theming options are better.
• Full-text search.
• Quote posts.
• Cat mode.

Yeah, it's going to get real ugly as climate refugees get used as fuel for fascism; we're already seeing the start.

In the context of the article, it refers to American centrists; they're notorious for lackluster, means-tested policy that is woefully inadequate for addressing society's problems when they're not actively making things worse.

I wonder why people take notes

It improves recall and comprehension.

Is it for studies or learning? Is it just to remember things? Is it to make your own map of your knowledge?

Yeppers.

What do you use to accomplish that? App? Paper?

Usually use paper, but GoodNotes is also a good app for this. Combine Cornell Notes with the method of loci and other advanced memory systems (Google Books link) for best results. Huge game changer.

Because young men exist, and study after study has shown that positive role models who look like the group in question have an outsized effect as compared to those from a different group. It’s a matter of how easily a young person can imagine themselves as that other person.

Right, and no one's arguing that they can't have men as role models.

I don’t mean to argue against the degenderization of stereotypical behaviors and traits, and I’ve had plenty of role models who run the gamut of identities. But where is the inherent value in dismissing an identifier?

The first statement leads to the second because again, if we degenderize stereotypical behaviors, then the label doesn't actually make sense.

We come to know ourselves through the similarities and differences we observe - what is gained if we think of one as inherently toxic?

No one here is labeling masculinity as inherently toxic. Just that it's a label defined by arbitrary cultural norms that are subject to change with a bunch of characteristics that are actually gender neutral (this is also the case for femininity).

How much is lost if we abdicate our responsibility and allow regressive voices to offer the only definitions?

I would say that if we have the cultural presence to project this kind of influence, that we should instead strive to move people away from this kind of thinking due to the above.

This is where my beef is. It’s active dismissal of people for whom “masculine” is an identifier. This is an argument that there is no space for positive masculinity in social equity. If the goal is to destigmatize people being who they are, why are we choosing to stigmatize a subset of those people?

I wouldn't say that this is stigmatizing anyone for being what is typically called positive masculine, nor does it exclude such men. It just calls for a small change in identity to one that makes more sense.

I was hit for having emotions as a child. When my grandmother died, I was terrified of showing how sad I was because it would have meant a beating. I was terrified of acknowledging my female role models, terrified of the fact that I had them.

I'm sorry to hear that your childhood was abusive and I'm glad to see that you've since been able to embrace your true self; it can be a very difficult journey and I'm always happy to see people overcome their hardships for the better.

I’d have loved to have a positive male role model! One who embodied the kinds of prosocial gender neutral behaviors that would have let me know I wasn’t a complete outsider.

Men like Terry Crews (whom I would consider a positive male role model) don't stop existing just because we laud them for their courage, bravery, and strength instead of their masculinity.

I'd wait for an OLED version personally.

I can’t reconcile the idea that every group except boys benefit from positive role models that help young people see their potential.

The article isn't arguing against having role models; it's questioning why they have to be masculine specifically when desirable characteristics among people are largely gender neutral. To quote a relevant portion:

To which I’d answer: why the hell do you need specifically masculine role models? My personal “role models” (to the extent I have any, which I actually try not to) are Emma Goldman (whom I’ve been told I resemble), Thomas Paine, Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, Murray Bookchin, Hubert Harrison, Eugene Debs, Vera Brittain, A. Philip Randolph, Rose Pesotta, Dorothy Day, Paul Robeson, Aneurin Bevan, Shirley Chisholm, George Orwell, Martin Luther King Jr., Ursula K. Le Guin, and Ella Baker. These people all share traits I respect: courage, moral integrity, perceptiveness, commitment, strength in the face of hostility. Brittain was a pacifist horrified by war who nevertheless devoted herself in World War I to tending to men gruesomely wounded on the battlefield. Bevan rose from working in Welsh coal mines to become Minister of Health in the postwar British Labour government, where he started the National Health Service. This week I’ve been admiring Rashida Tlaib, the Palestinian-American congresswoman who had the guts to stand up against most of the members of her party and tell the truth about the apartheid in Palestine. Emba and Reeves worry that young boys don’t have good examples of people they should try to be like. I say let them admire Rashida.

I just can’t imagine thinking about masculinity or femininity in deciding whom to look up to. What kind of young man fears having a female role model, except a boy irrationally terrified of appearing unmanly? Why do stereotypically male traits matter in the slightest? Some of the people on my list might be more “masculine,” others more “feminine.” When we try to organize people this way, we quickly run into confusion. Paul Robeson was a football player, but he also performed musical theater. Is the former “masculine” and the latter not? (Robeson was also a Stalinist. People are complicated, and it’s best not to admire anyone uncritically!)

And the author is correct. Especially as we gain more success in destigmatizing men doing traditionally feminine activities, qualifiers such as masculine and feminine make less sense. After all, if every gender wears makeup, then why is it feminine? If every gender likes sports, then why is it masculine? Because that's how it was traditionally? We changed the tradition because it sucked, so we don't need to continue being beholden to it.

While I would agree that we're probably not stopping climate disaster in the given timeframe due to dogshit political and economic systems (and the populations that uphold them), humans probably aren't going extinct from it; life is just going to suck major ass instead compared to if we did stop it in time. So don't just sit there and doom over it. Take action and help mitigate the impending damage, because lord knows we're gonna need it.

I temporarily ended my exodus from American entertainment media a couple years ago to watch Steven Universe and I couldn't imagine such a show existing when I was a child. I can definitely agree that they've gotten better about gender stuff and emotional intelligence.

True, and they're completely arbitrary as well. Traditionally masculine and feminine activities can vary heavily between cultures.

Congrats on figuring yourself out; for many in your situation it can be a difficult journey. I imagine that as the left takes more cultural victories, terms like masculine and feminine will lose their meaning and people will be able to choose their interests more freely without judgement.

Firefish has federation support. You can even see the platform the posts come from in the top right corner of each post.

Ok, then what about algorithms that are reasonably difficult to game?

Is it possible to design a content recommendation algorithm that isn't game-able? As it stands right now I don't think that algorithms are fundamentally bad, just that capitalism ruins everything.