I guess this section seems to indicate otherwise: “Like everyone else, you see issues in your environment - but unlike most people, you actually try to understand them and find solutions. And for that, you get nothing but pain.”

But I will take you at your word that you were more commiserating than directly agreeing. The internet in general is leading to more tribalism, sure, but I’m not seeing it any more on Lemmy than I am elsewhere. Mostly seeing it as it relates to politics. Would you mind sharing where you’re seeing that? Have you noticed specific communities or instances or topics? I follow a variety of content and it’s mostly pretty chill people with some political vitriol sprinkled in for novelty sake.

I don’t know if you’re a guy, but honestly really amazing display of allyship right here. Regardless, congrats on explaining things so succinctly. This is exactly correct.

Where’s the “sells you the cure meme” when you need it? Whoever prescribed the meds is just as capable of helping you taper off them. Weird that they didn’t note how many people abruptly stop due to change in or loss of insurance.

But their comment objectively is less productive than the “angry posts”, because their comment was against the rules and deleted and not engaged with, whereas the “angry posts” are there for the community to engage with and offer sympathy and understanding and a place to vent. It’s a kind of weird martyr complex that nobody asked for. Oh, woe is me, I got banned for breaking the rules! Why even comment in the first place if you knew it was going to be deleted? Elsewhere someone provided context that they did not comment on a “Meta” post. It was just a post complaining about how people treat the community. It was not at all soliciting advice or external opinions. They then went out of their way to break the rules and essentially prove the post right. Essentially showing that they think they are above the rules and that their opinion deserves to be heard regardless of what the user or the mods or the community has already expressed. Saying he was somehow “starting a discussion” makes no sense considering he knew that he would get banned and his comment removed. That was neither the time nor place to start any kind of discussion, and quite frankly I don’t think somebody attempting to have a good faith discussion would have it in that manner. If a transphobe went into a trans space that explicitly did not allow transphobes, and made a comment lamenting that they can’t ask questions in that community, would you still feel similarly? They just “see a wrong” in the world and are trying to start a discussion about it. Or would you think that it is OK for some spaces to have rules that are not up for discussion, especially within that space?

He might not have known that he would be getting banned from other subs, but as a user of several subs, I fully support admins taking steps to block people who willingly break rules of other marginalized communities. I think reasonable minds can disagree on this last point, but blahaj is pretty famous for being strict with bans even if not on the community/instance in question and the users of that instance actually really like that. I don’t know if this will be escalated, or if the ban will even stay in place, but my understanding is that people like that instance specifically because the mods there are so vigilant.

I’m not trying to get into an argument here, and based on your one sentence response, it seems like you’re not either, but angry posts in general don’t mean anything. I see a lot of angry posts about healthcare or the government or the increasing descent into fascism, and if somebody commented on any of those that they didn’t like seeing it, I wouldn’t necessarily think that comment was productive. Posts are allowed to be angry because people are allowed to be angry. Especially about injustice and oppression, which I imagine a lot of the “angry posts” are actually about, considering it’s a community of marginalized people for marginalized people. Just something to think about.

Thank you so much for providing that context. It is so funny that they said that their original post is in good faith, when even this post describing the situation isn’t in good faith.

I posted elsewhere in this thread, but I don’t see how actively and knowingly posting while breaking the rules of a community is seen as posting in good faith. If they are soliciting opinions from their community, and you were not part of their community, then your opinion is not one they are looking for.

The people who made a woman only community are doing exactly what you think they should do. They are seeing the overwhelming hate being directed towards women in online spaces, and trying to create a space exclusively for women. You might not like that, but that is what they have chosen to do to fix what they see as an issue. I don’t see how you think OP is being the change he wants to see and that the mods are in the wrong. OP is not a woman and cannot speak to the female experience. Even within the female experience, plenty of people disagree. That’s why it’s great that there is plenty of space for other people to make their own communities. Going into a community that has made their stance clear, and is for people that regularly face hate and oppression, especially online, and deciding that is the big injustice you see in the world is certainly a choice. There are plenty of places and communities that openly spread hate not just for women, but for LGBT people of which OP says they are. Maybe they should spend time criticizing those spaces instead of picking on a group of already marginalized people who happen to have a single point of disagreement on how to run their space.

Edit to add that additional context has been provided. Apparently the post in question was not an meta discussion and there was no indication that peoples opinions were being solicited. In fact it was a complaint about the way people react towards the community.

So you broke rules on purpose in a community for people who experience oppression and are upset when other communities have solidarity with that community and don’t want people who break rules on purpose in their space. Just because other people break rules doesn’t mean you should. Posting while knowingly breaking rules is not actually posting in good faith.

The rules aren’t fuzzy. These mods are trying to protect spaces for vulnerable people and see that you don’t respect those spaces. Seems pretty cut and dry. If you don’t like the way those communities are run, make your own.

Edit to add that additional context has been provided. Apparently the post in question was not a meta discussion and there was no indication that peoples opinions were being solicited. In fact it was a complaint about the way people react towards the community.

There may be intricacies regarding having to provide some funding, so it’s easy to just cut it instead of jumping through hoops to remove it. It might be just for the optics of saying they didn’t remove funding, they just reduced it to “prevent fraud” and then they never mention that they reduced by 90%. Maybe so that if it goes over well with their base they can cut it again for some extra bump in the news cycle. I do wish the article mentioned if there was a mandatory requirement for funding though.

I’m a woman and not on tinder, but I don’t know why people don’t like this. Anyone listing a height preference is not the kind of person you should be looking for, especially if you don’t fit their preference imho. It’s literally self filtering, though it did say it’s not fully blocking or anything.

I know women who would’ve loved that feature and I would never suggest any of my friends date them. Even after they dated guys that didn’t fit the criteria and amicably split, they still held firm to the idea. I think it’s ok to have preferences, but this is dumb to filter for and people are dumb to want to match with these people.

I think “good answer” really depends on your values. If I hate people from or with heritage from South America or Africa or whatever other place, then it’s probably great that the government is illegally deporting citizens with that background. Unfortunately, that’s where a lot of people are. Admittedly, they’re also ok with denying birthright citizenship.

I know this generally falls under the personal responsibility part, but I think it’s also important to point out separately that not only do you have to do this, but you have to KNOW you need to do this. How many people are going to be exposed to this information and then remember it? I try to care and minimize my impact, but I legitimately forget who I’m “supposed” to be boycotting unless it’s a big thing. I don’t shop at target now, but should I have stopped sooner? Starbucks and McDs, but am I also not supposed to eat at chipotle? I legitimately do not remember. Heck, I don’t even remember why I’m boycotting some places. I just assume if it’s convenient and cheap I should not go.

I’m not talking myself out of doing anything and I am actively doing what I can. I also specifically said that resistance isn’t futile. We should all do what we can, but not talking about the problem, especially when other leftists are openly and actively acknowledging it, just leads to the pic above of feeling like their experience is the problem. Their experience is not the problem and they are not crazy. Unfortunately, there are a lot of fascists around. That fact is important to acknowledge because it really does change the kind of resistance that works.

I know the infighting meme is old at this point, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish with this comment, but it comes off as obnoxious (to me) and we need less of that. I’m not posting doomer rhetoric. I’m acknowledging a truth already acknowledged in this thread. I don’t need a random leftist telling me to work hard to overcome reasons for inaction. I already organize locally. Acknowledging that there’s just only so much you can do and it’s ok to work in that framework can be helpful.

That’s fair, but I think that a non insignificant number of people just don’t care. Yes, protests in big cities seem large, but like the other commenter was saying, only 1/3 of people really oppose this. And some of that 1/3 don’t oppose it particularly strongly if at all. I know lifelong Rs that luckily didn’t vote for Trump, but mostly because he doesn’t stand on ceremony. They voted Harris, but they legitimately have no problem with rounding up immigrants and attacks on the LGBT community. Local resistance is just not really possible when 1/3 of your neighbors have trump flags in their yard, 1/3 think your resistance is stupid and maybe 25% of the remaining 1/3 care enough to join some of the time. How do you do a work stoppage if only 1/12 of your colleagues would even consider it. I’m not saying resistance is futile, but I don’t think it’s about the wage slave issue as much as it is that there’s no real public will to stop this. Wage slave issue is of course still a problem and likely contributing factor.

Part of it is likely that she is a famous woman who is not known for being sexualized and is considered a public figure. No one wants to have the scientific standard be “I used pics of this girl I had a crush on” so I imagine famous people are good to pick from. I imagine Merkel also doesn’t have a lot of bikini pics AI can draw from (some amount of swimming pics are unfortunately always available for public figures for some reason) so you can be sure it’s generated them from nothing. If you used a famous model, there may be a possibility it is using pics of them to model their chest. If you’re testing what it does with random inputs, using Merkel is probably a good option.

As far as the output being what was requested, I think the issue can vary depending on your view of AI so I am just going to leave that part unanswered because if it’s a problem or not relies so much on your priors.

This has to be obvious bait. He’s not upset he got old. He’s upset Biden (and anyone else in that position) was too self important/addicted/stupid to recognize when it’s time to step back and now we’re all suffering for it. Also, Hitler dedicated himself to a career of public service. Not really sure that just being a politician or federal worker in general is worthy of praise. I have a list of public servants I’d much prefer not to have ever served. Weird bootlicking behavior you got going on.

I saw the .nl and figured you might be unaware of applicable laws and might be concerned about her family being responsible. In reality if she has health insurance then the hospital is still getting paid probably enough to cover her care regardless of if her portion is paid. If not she’ll likely be eligible for Medicaid seeing as her circumstances have changed and then taxpayers are footing the bill.

If she’s poor it will just kind of disappear. This does not transfer to next of kin or anything.

I had something in there originally about “if she has one” but it felt charged, so I took it out. Hard agree though.

Iit will likely be taken out of her estate unfortunately. What a great point. As if her son hasn’t lost enough.