t3rmit3 @ t3rmit3 @beehaw.org

He / They

---

Read more

Posts

38

Comments

1,990

Joined

2 yr. ago

I will reserve judgement until I see precisely who he intends to replace them with.

His adoption by a lot of centrist Dems, and his absorption and placement as DNC Vice Chair makes me wonder if he's just the Centrist Dems' vehicle to remain the top influence in the party by replacing old Centrists with young Centrists.

Edit: To clarify for anyone else who is confused, I really hope he does what he says he will! We need lots more young progressives.

This is something I've been harping on for years, ever since I saw my partner's cousin (16 at that time) falling down the manosphere hole, and had to work to pull him back from it:

There is not an established "pipeline" / messaging to young men, that shows them their place in a positive masculinity culture without being condemning or accusatory. In a vacuum, without any opposing messaging, guys learning this stuff organically or through simple social maturation might be enough in a leftward-shifting society, but there's an entire developed pipeline to capture young men into right-wing, misogynistic rhetoric, and it's clearly very successful, and it's part of a feedback cycle/ political apparatus used to push society rightwards.

I don't think there are many left wing guys in the US who can speak with credibility to the interests, experiences, and worldview of young guys who feel ostracized by traditional US progressive/ center-left rhetoric. It was actually a "Defend Equality" sticker of an AR-15 over a Progress Pride flag on one of my gun safes that prompted said cousin to ask me about LGBT+ people, which was my 'in' to discuss all the rightwing rhetoric he was being steeped in. That's not the kind of thing that you generally see welcomed in most progressive spaces.

This already happened in conservative circles back circa 2016ish. Lots of Republicans got tired of being called morons for denying climate change, and pivoted to, "well it's too late to do anything anyways". This is just businesses adopting the same rhetoric, for the same reason; if it's too late, there's "no point" trying anything, so we should all just keep on polluting and let someone else fix it later.

Frankly, I think that fears about "continuity of consciousness" is jumping the gun a little as an objection to current AI. Water usage, Capitalism, and asymmetry of information creation/ spread is much more pressing, even in the medium to long term.

we have plenty of issues

I would venture to say that despite those issues, thanks to y'all's moderation this space is non-toxic on the whole. It may be that size is a de-facto limit on maintaining a space like Beehaw, or it may be that we (as in, internet users) just haven't figured out the best format/ structure for scaling up safely.

I think a microblogging platform that allows moderated, invite-only sub-groups (and which doesn't show you any posts by users or groups you don't subscribe to) could be a good step towards that. Sort of a combination of BlueSky feed + Beehaw communities/ FB groups. That could give you a Beehaw-like moderation experience in a microblog platform.

I think most microblogging platforms' failure in this area likely stems from them being ad and engagement-driven, and their corporate "need" for users to be more and more active across "interest domains", clashing with their users' need to stay isolated from users who are toxic to them.

IMO, toxicity isn't as much about who comes into your environment as it is about who you allow to remain. There are plenty of low- and non-toxic spaces online, they're just heavily moderated.

Zero chance. They are too terrified of being targeted to actually use their clout. Having worked in higher ed, I don't think there is much institutional will to fight back from administrators. Professors, somewhat, but not admin.

I don't burn out on screens. I can enjoy a game for 4 hours to unwind from 6 hours of work.

If you're just starting out working, I wager to say you're still... unoptimized. Putting in a lot more effort than necessary. New jobs are always stressful. Working for the first time even worse. Give it 10 years of working, and you'll (hopefully) find your groove where you don't let work drain your entire battery, and you still have energy left for relaxation.

I don't think they expected their death camp(s) to get exposed so quickly, and now they're rushing to figure out what to do. Or maybe Bukele started killing people on his own. I pray I'm wrong, and he's still alive.

It's so they can pretend that animals become artists to "attract mates" (get laid), as where us refined and evolved humans... uhhh... totally don't do that.

Nice. Get rekd, private equity firms.

This feels like a super obvious "yes" if art is understood to mean aesthetically pleasing for the sake of aesthetically pleasing, which lots of things animals do is, unless someone is trying to gatekeep it as something that requires human intention or understanding.

Not one iota of surprise in my body. I never understood how people didn't get the ick from him.

In which case there are still ways to make it work, like putting in an SSO bypass rule for the IP of your other property. Point is, under no circumstances is it impossible to both have it be protected against scanning attacks like the ones described in the gh issue, and keep it available to use over the internet for authorized users.

You should already be fine in that case.

Your smart TV is (presumably) on your local network, so you should be routing the requests locally (point the client at the local ip, assuming it didn't autodiscover it) not through the VPN/ tunnel.

Put the instance behind another authentication point like a VPN or reverse proxy with SSO. That will prevent the wider Internet from accessing it without legitimate users being cut off. You should be doing this with any server you operate (like Plex), but definitely one that may have legal implications.

Bye, Felicia

There is no such thing.

The person is the one who pursues, builds, and implements policy. A bad person will not be a good ally, no matter their professed policy beliefs, because it is only integrity that binds a politician to work for their constituents once elected.

Without a good person, you have no way to trust that good policy will follow.

There are piece of shit Democrat voters who won't vote for any women.

But the 2 women candidates that the DNC has put their weight behind were massively unpopular compared to many other well-known Democrats who are women.

So it becomes hard to actually suss out which is the bigger factor in their losses.

On one side you have people like my dad, whose conclusion is that we're all still too sexist... so we need to just stop running women, so that we don't lose.

And on the other side you have people like me, who think that kind of cynical politicking is exactly what lost us 2016 and 2024, and a popular, inspiring, progressive, female candidate is exactly what we need to counter the fashies.

I actually do feel bad for the very real sexism that Hillary has obviously encountered in her career. Everything else aside, that is (by definition) never deserved or justified. But she is very legitimately a huge warhawk, a close personal friend and advocate for at least one major war criminal, thoroughly corrupt, a huge pusher of cutthroat capitalism for workers, anti-M4A, and just an all-around condescending asshole when being candid (everyone forgets her being caught joking about young people being basement-dwelling losers at a private fundraiser).