The post asserts that the women pictured are so unattractive that it has turned their republican husband’s gay.

The implication being that women are to be valued primarily by their physical appearance and a man is to be judged by the appearance of his wife.

Lemmy lets this slide because they are republicans and therefore acceptable targets, but they are bad people not because they are unattractive or they married someone unattractive/low-status, they are bad people because they voted for an administration which has done enormous harm to minorities, LGBTQ folks and anyone who drowned indirectly on USAID.

That’s not even getting into the problems with the conversation therapy-esque idea of being able to intentionally change an adults sexuality

Yeah, I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, and it is deeply ironic whenever the right try to claim Orwell as their own.

I just wanted to point out that while Orwell definitely was some flavour of anarchist/socialist, he wasn’t uncritically pro-communism and was in fact staunchly against specific forms of communism.

From what I remember of Homage to Catalonia: Orwell was very much ideologically aligned with the anarchists. In the first half he is overjoyed by the dissolution of classism and the revolutionary atmosphere on the front.

Then in the second half he rotates away from the front and is dismayed by the factionalism and infighting in Barcelona, the blame for which he laid largely at the feet of the communists backed by the USSR. His brigade were declared fascist sympathisers and were arrested in secret while his comrades continued to hold the line, his friend was arrested and mistreated, Orwell tried to free him, failed and fled the country.

I think it’s fair to say Orwell had great sympathy for anarchist and socialist causes, but claiming he supported the soviet backed communists is only technically true. During one specific part of his life they were allies, but after the Soviets betrayed their comrades in the Spanish civil war they earned lifelong entity from Orwell.

1984 condemns totalitarianism and control over what people are allowed to think and know rather than specifically facism (I think oceania may have been communist coded?), animal farm is overtly about how a noble revolution is corrupted from within by the power hungry who impose worse conditions while still adorning themselves with the language and symbolism of revolution and equality.

Disclaimer; it has been a while since I have read any of the 3 books, I’m happy to be corrected if you think I am mis characterising something in the

Turns out when you build a platform around anti-censorship you wind up with a small number of free speech enthusiasts and a large number of people who will be banned from any site with rules against hate speech.

Then when you have a site where 80% of the content is racism the 20% non racists leave.

They are arguing the definitions with someone who was “arguing” with someone who lived through the reality

It’s generally not even Londoners re-posting crime “news” about the capital (we live there, so we know) it’s more certain people from rural areas who neither live, work or visit London.

Those certain people are either the ones who have a chip on their shoulder about how London is a success despite not catering exclusively to white native born people, or people who just got sucked into an alternate reality where they read so much crime news that everyone in London must get stabbed once a year.

There is also a healthy dosage of conflating per square mile and per capita crime

Oh it’s easy;

Does doing it the correct way increase your workload but make the business more profitable in the short term? Do it the correct way.

Does doing it the correct way preserve your safety at the cost of operating efficiency? Do it the incorrect way.

The second kind of unfollowed rule is there as a liability shield, it’s so that if you get hurt the business can claim you weren’t following your mandatory training and they aren’t liable.

But if people did follow it then they would get a kind word from their supervisor saying we don’t have the time for that even if it is in the official training. Because the supervisor themselves is in a worse bind, they have to tell management that the new liability shield is being followed as it won’t work otherwise, but they are on the hook for the productivity of their team in such a way that they can’t allow people to follow the slow process.

No worries, glad it helped 🙂

I think it would be nice if there were good discoverable resources for things that come naturally to most people but others need to put work into understanding.

Electric cars allow carbon emissions from personal transport to fall in step with the carbon emissions from energy generation.

Every solar panel, wind turbine, hydro plant, nuclear plant etc which comes online makes all EVs a bit cleaner, but does very little for internal combustion engine cars (acronyming that feels weird now)

Ideally we would have fewer or no cars, but I get that I’m very lucky to live in a major metropolitan area with good public transport and that’s why I don’t need a car, but that’s not true for everyone.

It is significantly easier to move people from combustion to electric cars than it would be to build robust public transport everywhere and change the habits of everyone in the country.

I think it’s counter productive to shame people for taking a positive step for the environment just because it’s not a total solution. People doing good should be praised not shamed, even if it’s a small good, especially if it’s a small good that might lead to them making further positive changes.

It’s not quite an “accident” in the sense someone made a mistake or stubled more like “an accident of history” where someone is influenced by events outside their control.

In this case it wasn’t like the iconic visual design was selected from the favourite of all the ideas they had purely by aesthetic criteria. Rather limitations in the way human perception works influenced them to try a different approach and it wound up being beautiful.

Mirrors edge is (from what I remember) mildly dystopian, so it felt slightly genre defying to have a clean aesthetic in te dystopia, rather than using dirt and grime to emphasise the squalor and neglect.