faythofdragons

joined 1 month ago
[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

How does missing work help the climate? Genuine question, but I've been fired when a car broke down over the weekend, and I couldn't get another one before Monday. I don't see how it was better that I wound up spending the money I was saving for an electric car on an old junker so I didn't miss rent and get evicted.

Edit: Just tell me you don't have an answer instead of downvoting, this isn't Reddit.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

On the flip side, they've got plenty of excuses they can use, I'mma smoke my weed, haha

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago

And I’d respond, ~~“I wasn’t!”~~ "Ask my lawyer."

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 weeks ago

Nah, I'm calling Hitler a Nazi, unless you want to claim that he wasn't

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Tell me you don't know about the madagascar plan without mentioning the madagascar plan

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago

The stereotype didn’t coalesce out of nowhere spontaneously and entirely out of the imagination of privileged assholes.

No, it came out of propaganda, but go off on this imagined past that neither of us actually experienced.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Nice, another person that doesn't care about accuracy of information in their arguments.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So, I'm not the person you're responding to, but I have similar views. I'm going to skip some statements, as I can't speak for yggstyle, only my own stance.

You say rights exist until they encroach on others’ freedoms. But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety. By your own logic, those views forfeit their protection.

Yes? Harmful statements should be removed, but if there's no explanation given, people are probably just going to roll their eyes about it.

You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views. That’s exactly what content moderation is - society collectively demonstrating opposition to ideas that threaten democratic values and human dignity.

Content moderation is simply the removal of rule-breaking content. Xitter removing Musk hate is content moderation, but not an opposition to harmful views. In order to actually oppose said views, a site needs to be more transparent about what a harmful view is and be able to say how removed comments are harmful.

You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers. But platforming hate speech (by claiming they’re something to be “debated”) creates echo chambers of hatred and drives away the very people you claim should be engaging in debate. Your approach actually reduces genuine dialogue.

There's a difference between platforming hate speech and letting people fuck up without immediately banning them. I was raised christofascist, and the only reason I was able to change my mind is because people engaged with me about why it was harmful to trust my family. If I'd just had content removed for opaque reasons, with zero explanation as to what I'd done wrong and didn't respond to questions about why it was wrong, I wouldn't've had a reason to distrust my family. Your approach also actually reduces genuine dialogue.

You’re basically saying “we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down.”

Again, education isn't the same as platforming something. If somebody genuinely doesn't understand why arson is bad, I absolutely want to teach them why and not just tell them to get lost.

but every time you spend time trying I’ll just claim a new ridiculous thing - absolute “freedom of speech” is a godsend for bad faith actors.

The limit of "so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others" means it's not absolute freedom of speech though?

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago

Ah, I assumed "relationship with food starts to get kind of toxic" meant a toxic relationship with the food, not the structure.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

MILF- Machinist I'd Like To...

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

No, I don't fast after, which is what differentiates my BED from bulimia. I've never felt shame from my eating specifically, it's always been a method of self-soothing anxiety about future availability of food. I do feel shame when I'm reminded that's not a healthy mindset around food, but the shame is complicated and partly about my economic status, not the food itself. You may not have BED, but I would recommend looking into eating disorders.

The only reason it's getting brought up is because you said that your relationship with food can be toxic when you try to meal plan, and that's a big indicator light that you may also have an eating disorder. Autism, ADHD, and eating disorders are very commonly found together, so it's not like you can only have one or the other.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

It's an unfortunate stereotype that all eating disorders are anorexia, but not all of them come from a concern about weight gain/loss. I have a binge-eating disorder from growing up in poverty, and it's given me the compulsion to stuff as much food into me as possible because I grew up not knowing when my next meal would be.

When I super focus on it (meal prep, shakes, etc), it starts to become a major point of anxiety in my life, and my relationship with food starts to get kind of toxic.

I go through the same thing whenever I try to control my binge eating, and it turns hella toxic.

view more: ‹ prev next ›