Just keep in mind, we (men) are anything but a monolith. Setbacks can definitely feel disheartening, that's how life is, but we get back up again and keep on going.
Finding someone good for you can take time, but I'm sure you'll get there in the end.
Btw, don't write off irl meetings via hobbies & such. 20-somethings usually are a lot more mature than teens.
This comment has received several reports, but I am not going to remove it – it is polite and to the point in answering OP's question.
Yes, honesty can feel hurtful to some, no, it's not breaking any rules of Lemmy.world or this community (in my view as moderator).
Remember to be excellent to each other.
/Ice
Yes on all accounts - I think freedom of thought and expression are linked to a great extent. We form and develop thoughts and ideas by expressing and discussing them, especially when it comes to more advanced concepts that benefit from group insights.
They are tied, because the other two freedoms are intrinsically linked to the first. If a thought is not permitted to be expressed, then it is, for all intents and purposes, prohibited.
Consider how often you forget something. I write things down to remember them. If that thought, expressed, were considered criminal, then it becomes a limitation also on thought itself.
calls to violence, hate speech, and medical misinformation in the name of protecting its citizenry. I don’t think it can ethically suppress other kinds of expression, especially political express, most especially criticism of the government.
...and yet political expression and both "calls to violence" and "hate speech" are overlapping. Is a call to revolution not the ultimate criticism of the government? (but also inherently violent?)
Who gets to decide what is hateful, violent or misinformation? How do we prevent the tools used to regulate dissemination of these types of expression from being applied against other things, or the definitions of the terms from being changed/drifting over time? (Consider for instance statements regarding transgender individuals somehow getting covered by medical disinformation laws...)
I think a voluntary community, however, can ethically set much narrower limits on expression within community space.
I agree, I think this could be applied even regarding non-voluntary spaces.
However, if a forum has a sufficiently large number of members amongst the population, I believe it should be considered a public space (and have these freedoms apply), hence taking away the power of controllers of large platforms to dictate/limit/direct the public discourse.
should have the ability to restrict hate speech and threats of violence
Who decides what is considered hate speech and threats of violence?
The rest of your comment indicates you're aware of the vagueness of these terms (and existing instances of regulatory abuse).
IMO any sufficiently large online platform should constitute a public space for purposes of these freedoms, essentially removing the ability of individual organizations to direct public discourse through platform ownership.
This is what inevitably happens when freedom of thought, speech and expression is limited for essentially any reason. Once the tools are in place, they will be used, abused and inevitably end up in the hands of someone you disagree with.
Yes!
FM radio has to compete with (free) Spotify nowadays given that 4g coverage is pretty ubiquitous, at least where I live. This means they can't stuff too many ads in there.
Managed to find someone who would host us for the night. Thank you very much for referring us to the site :)
Quickest, simplest fix would be to treat borrowing against unrealized capital gains as income for tax purposes.
That's not how I read the comment, and I very much doubt that's how it was intended or how most people interpreted it.