historically humans aren’t usually burning down libraries on purpose.

How on earth have you come to this conclusion.

The corporations that took control of the Internet don’t want us to remember.

I appreciate that drag took the time to watch the whole video and I think drag is probably right about Jones’ cultural background, as it is similar to mine. I only meant to help make drag’s life easier if that’s something drag was having trouble with, but I respect that drag already understood the friction that drag’s neopronoun creates and made an informed choice to use it on lemmy.

Also, nice Steven Universe clip. That’s a show that helped me understand people like drag and is why I have the patience to engage with drag despite the very conservative cultural context I live in.

If drag keeps watching the next point he makes is the exact inverse, namely that neopronouns are also harder than many people make them out to be. Specifically when he talks about the processing cost that is incurred by using even standard/traditional pronouns in certain ways. The parts of the video I thought would be most helpful are in his conclusion, so I do recommend watching to the end.

The part I believe is helpful starts at 15:10

I noticed that too when I first came across the video, but after becoming more familiar with this person’s content I saw that they lean progressive/inclusive and the title is like that probably just for the sake of clickbait or because they’re coming from a more centrist/liberal perspective and aren’t as familiar with leftist terminology.

I still think their perspective as a linguist is worth hearing.

For most people what’s familiar is easier to remember than what’s simpler. Personally I find drag’s comments difficult to parse. I’ll respect drag’s wishes regarding how drag wants to be referred to, but I expect drag’s going to have a lot of friction even with very tolerant and accepting people if drag insists on that pronoun choice.

This video might be helpful for drag. I know the title is a bit clickbaity but I promise the person in the video is also tolerant and accepting.

Edit: I went through and replaced all instances of you/your with drag. I think this is illustrative of the problem with drag’s approach. If everyone has to expend great effort simply to interact with drag in a respectful manner then that will lead to people becoming frustrated with drag. While drag’s identity is entirely drag’s business and no one else’s, drag’s insistence on a difficult/unfamiliar pronoun is a choice, and drag could make drag’s life easier by loosening up.

If you’re gonna talk about desegregating bathrooms I think it’s important to talk about designing bathrooms for greater privacy as well. Ideally you don’t want a bunch of urinals lined up across from the sink / common area with no dividers in a desegregated bathroom. It’s a bad idea to just remove the signs on existing public bathroom designs and say anything goes.

Also, why do you keep referring to yourself in the 3rd person?

Joe Rogan, is that you?

In all fairness that was probably necessary to make it to the presidency with her head still firmly attached to her body.

Accountability for actions that effect people other than yourself is necessary for a healthy democracy. Your problem is mistaking accountability for persecution.

It’s because this isn’t about privacy at all, it’s about a popular social media platform being outside the control of domestic intelligence agencies. The US is unable to control the narrative on TikTok the way they do on American social media, which allowed pro-palestinian sentiment to spread there unhindered. It had a huge effect on the politics of the younger generation (IMO a positive one) by showing them news and first hand accounts they wouldn’t have seen otherwise.

Edit: And yes, China is able to control the narrative on TikTok and that is a potential problem, but so far they’ve had a fairly hands-off approach to US TikTok aside from basic language censorship. I figure the way China sees it is that an unmoderated free-for-all will do more to sow divisions in the US than a carefully controlled (and therefore obvious) pro-China narrative ever could.

The solution to athlete’s foot is to chop off your toes. Harder to get foot fungus without all those pointless crevices.

I don’t reject relationships with other people, but I think they should be between independent individuals who associate with each other only because they both want to. (Violating this principle is sometimes necessary but always undesirable.) You appear to think otherwise, and I suppose that’s a fundamental value difference that can’t be resolved through debate

I also believe in autonomy, but everyone has relationships with people they did not choose to associate with due entirely to unavoidable circumstance. This doesn’t just apply to family, but to everyone on earth to varying degrees. You are just as dependent on community as you are dependent on nature, a complex web of relationships of which you are a small part. Refusing to acknowledge that these relationships exist because you did not choose to enter them is childish, and it enables you to behave selfishly because you do not take responsibility for your externalities. This is the same pitfall that capitalists dive into to justify pollution and all manner of horrible things.

The bunker-building impulse demonstrates what’s wrong with libertarianism very well, an irrational attachment to individualism in all things. Libertarians refuse to acknowledge the positive role of nature and community in their lives, instead focusing on the negatives and spending all their energy fighting the very thing that keeps them alive. How long do you think you can last alone in a bunker without any support?

Silicon Valley techno-libertarians (a group I identify with)

I hate to break it to you but these are definitely the worst ones. It’s what the Gadsden flag waving canned food and gun hording preppers turn into if they end up with tons of money. These are the morons that build bunkers in New Zealand and try to brainstorm ways to keep their post-apocalyptic security guards loyal to them with remote-detonated bomb collars or holding their families hostage.

The idea of preventing private ownership and rent-seeking of communication platforms is.

Why are you so intent on keeping the conversation about the election? I’m trying to tell you your time and energy is better spent on other things. It’s unproductive to respond to people complaining about how all our candidates support genocide by basically telling them to shut up and choose.

I respect it but if you’re American and trying to take the word back, I’m afraid you’re a little too late. It’s a political party now and they’re all-in on corporatism.

Lemmy is an inherently libertarian platform

This is an interesting perception, because if you mean American libertarianism then this doesn’t really make sense. Lemmy’s creators are communist and intended it to be anti-corporate. It is designed in a decentralized manner specifically to avoid situations where companies can own and profit from it.

The kinds of platforms I would see as being libertarian (in the American sense) are the diaspora of privately owned social media companies.

Electoral politics are not the only way to change things. In fact, it’s a very poor way, as evidenced by the fact that genocide is now the only option. Every bit of progress that’s been made has been achieved through mass movements; protesting, coalition building, engaging in direct action or civil disobedience… until the politicians are forced to appease them in order to keep hold of their power. Would electoral politics have ended segregation, were it not for the civil rights movement? Would women have been granted the right to vote, were it not for the suffragette movement?

You would not recognize the reality we’d be living in today if everyone from back then thought like you that all they can do about injustice is vote for the “lesser evil.”