The two examples in your later paragraph are wholly different cases: the second is a completely different use-case and the first one is actually less morally unambiguous than you think.
But even people who like making stuff would be able to devote more time to their work if they were given the means to sustain themselves through their work without needing to work another job, wouldn't they?
In that case, you're going to have to endure children non-stop arriving at your doorstep consequence-free hoping to be the 30% of them you let come in.
Which I mean, good for the kids, but it's not sustainable.
To be fair, if some stranger took a cab to your house and asked to eat your food, would you pay for their cab fare back as well?
Obviously these are extenuating circumstances, and we should show more care towards refugees and especially more vulnerable classes, but to say it is their "job" is overselling their obligation.
She isn't responsible, and I hope that was clear in my original statement. What I'm saying is agreeing with the sentiment in the original post that rather than lending support to the problems faced back home, it might conversely make things worse.
It's not her prerogative at all, just a sad observation.
Yeah, while I am happy for her and wish nothing but the best for her, is this really going to change anything back home? How many other women have the means and training to do what she did? I guess the one thing this does is highlight to the rest of the world how terrible things are in Iran, but I'm under no illusion that this is going to improve the lot of oppressed women in Iran. They might be even more restricted from attending overseas competitions.
Your spoiler didn't work for me on kbin's main site - just a heads up. Maybe put the content warning at the start rather than after the spoiler? I'm not affected fortunately (though I am disgusted), but it might help others.
That's not what second-hand smoking is. Smoking around others will cause them to suffer the negative effects of the smoke as well. This is especially bad around children.
Also, the argument that "it hurts no one but themselves" is a really weird one. Does you not wish the best for your loved one? If you saw your daughter or husband or wife hurting themselves, would it be "controlling" for you to try to get them to stop doing it?
As someone who skews quite far left ideologically but believes that people on both sides have been painted into polarised caricatures in each others' minds by social media, I wholeheartedly agree.
On the other hand, what's the harm of a content warning? If you feel like you're okay clicking on something you've been warned about, you're not any worse off.
Number 4 also seems like basic etiquette to me. You can't always downvote and move on if someone decides to be a dick and hits home. Why blame the victim and not the perpetrator? There's no reason to be uncivil to begin with.
When presenting the information to your girlfriend, please be completely honest and make sure to also show the Important Note that the researchers put at the front.
Important note: smoking may offer a limited degree of protection in some individuals against the development of a small number of diseases, outlined below. However, this information is of little relevance to public health, given that the amount of disease that tobacco may be said to prevent is insignificant in comparison with the far greater incidence of disease caused by smoking. Tobacco products kill one in two of their long-term users.
Half of long-term smokers die to smoking. Even if you think you can quit, the point of this study is to show that even having looked for benefits, they could only find a negligible amount of benefits compared to the harms of smoking.
So you think she could be right? You just don't want to do it? That reasoning doesn't make sense. If you think she's right you should be stopping right now.
There are no health benefits to smoking or vaping as opposed to just not smoking. I don't know how directly this needs to be told to you, but I think right now you're too deep into addiction/denial to see it.
If you love your girlfriend, sometimes it's okay to trust them on something, especially if everyone else is also telling you the same thing, even if it's not what you want to hear.
The point is that it's being defended against. That's the whole point of this post. So your audience are people who are already entrenched against the fediverse, being faced with a Lemmy invasion. And they're the kinds of people who relish these Reddit activities in the first place.
Do you think engaging with them in this incredibly superficial way is going to suddenly change their minds?
Or do you maybe think it might instead reinforce their cognitive biases now that they've spent a day and a half "defending" r/place against the militant minority?
But the whole point of coming here is I didn't want to use the website and give them engagement.
I think part of the problem is that when everyone is pulling in different directions, the effect of people like me boycotting using Reddit entirely to try to make some kind of dent in their use statistics basically ends up doing nothing.
If you're "defending" your banner, meaning refreshing and adding inputs on a regular basis, you're providing a ton more engagement, views, and clicks, as well as getting other Reddit users more entrenched in their defense of their stupid website, than any other possible activity you could do on that site. So thanks, I guess.
The worst case scenario for r/place is a world where everyone just sits in their corner after populating it at the start. Zero stories, boring, people no longer want to engage. What you're doing? Dramatic gold.
It is a totally different reality. The nature of social media bubbles means that you are experiencing an entirely alien experience just by dint of being here. The problems of Reddit look huge when everyone around you keeps talking about them, you subscribe to communities that hate Reddit, and it sounds like everyone is on board with the exodus from Reddit because, well, they're here.
But Reddit has ten? a hundred? times more users than the Fediverse has, even fully federated. All the people who stay are going to be people who didn't deem the problem serious enough - this means complaints about Reddit won't be upvoted, and there is a high chance that the only way that users feel affected by what Reddit has done at all are the blackouts that affected their performance. Everytime someone posts there about what is wrong with Reddit, it simply results in ten replies about how the problem can't be that big, and Reddit still enjoys the engagement.
The nature of human intuition and social media means that it's very easy to fall into the trap of believing your universe is the real one, and it's just as true for us as it is for them. In my case I've chosen not to go back to Reddit entirely and provide the one objective metric I can of my unhappiness: -1 user on their site.
Ghost Trick is a very twisty game, but a few of the twists had me tearing up.