Pigeons have a storage bag called a crop. They will eat small pebbles later to aid in grinding the food up prior to digestion in the stomach

many of its members urged their leaders to focus more on wage talks with the management, rather than spending the union’s budget on a political purpose.

It’s definitely a weakness. There is an entire spectrum of personal beliefs, but wherever you are, if yours don’t align with the mods you get censored. Reality is every new users first week is finding out where they ‘belong’ and this both discourages new users, and creates detrimental echo chambers.

I don’t have a reddit account so I can’t verify, but IIRC it doesn’t ignore single return commands, and for certain Discord pushes the message immediately on hitting enter. This is closer to what most modern interfaces use, and what anyone using SMS is used to. Shift+enter allows the user to force a new line and 2x gives the paragraph break.

I’m not saying markdown isn’t a thing, but it isn’t used nearly as often (edit: as in Lemmy’s particular implementation) as being described and setting up Lemmy’s interface to require it feels clunky. My specific issue is the handling of 1 enter being ignored. Everything else makes sense because I too use markdown manually quite often.

While I am not old enough to have experience with typing in the 70s, in my decades of experience with text input methods I cannot ever recall one using this method of 1 carriage return being ignored. No forum, email or word processor (even WordPerfect for the c64) or Notepad uses this, so my guess is your experience is in some niche technical field which does not apply to what the general population expects.

Most UIs don’t even have a preview option, let alone need one, because they don’t require you to have a stick up your ass to ‘get’ using them.

The Lemmy UI is easy enough to use IMO. Where the problems show up are:

• Unreliable linking to other comments and posts. It is annoying to no end to receive a link to someone’s comment and be unceremoniously ripped out of your home server and put onto the federated one no longer logged in etc… This behaviour should somehow be prevented

• a quick reference to the text commands easily found somewhere (ie: sidebar)

• I’d prefer more theme and colour options

• Fix the text interface so it respects carriage return entries properly. If I want to start a new line directly under the current one (edit: AFI knew after 4+ months of use) there is

no way

to do

it.

Make it so a single carriage return is acknowledged and correctly starts a new line right underneath, or automatically forces a blank line between. This needing double entry is unintuitive and wrecks many new user’s first hundred post’s appearance.

Finally, the premise: Lemmy.world should be more welcoming is itself undesirable. That instance is already taking up an inordinate number of users so IMO every other instance (except the awful ones, we all know who they are) should be using a better UI, not L.W

Or, we could just rely on our traumatic memory from 9/11 and not care.

I hate that I’m subscribed to this community 😄

Home owners have entered the chat.

Yeah, it’s the same response for every event EU/NATO/Ukraine related. The news “EU/NATO/UA did something” = “Putin utters red line threat”

The joke is this is news like “Putin still breathing today”.

No, I’m not entertaining your tried and true slippery slope of straw man accusations when you lose an argument. Be better, because this schtick is getting old and abusive. I’ve done nothing but politely explain my quite reasonable position and only answered your questions as best I can. Continuing on at this point would be sealioning as you’ve obviously tilted into direct attacks on me and to continue this to your embarrassment would only serve to further your agenda of getting a report enforced.

Have a good day Squid. Feel free to read up on that Principle of Charity link I previously supplied for a better understanding of rational argumentation.

sealioning

Seriously, you’re a mod. Do better.

Because I prefer rational arguments as they are the best ones for elucidating Truth, not appeals to emotional ones. I’d rather know I was right for good reasons than just join the mob right or not. In this case anyone could have accused Kamala of ‘being black’ and I could refute it without needing to bring racism claims into it.

Interesting that you use the word ‘charitable’ as the Principle of Charity is literally what I’m talking about.

Edit: bring

(although, obviously he is but I can’t be bothered to dredge up all that BS)

I clearly agree with you. The point is that his argument “Kamala is abusing her mixed heritage to pander to those audiences” is the best way to interpret the argument to come to rational conclusions.

In my counter-argument I simply state the premises: The candidates job is to win (implied), both candidates are pandering to their heritage, and accusations of pandering are an unpersuasive form criticism as it is expected from rational voters. Therefore, I do not find his complaint that her pandering is unfair, abusive or even remotely persuasive to vote for him instead.

If you want to pile on a rhetorical argument that he is racist and shouldn’t be voted for you’d be preaching to the choir, but as you can see accusing your arguer of being racist is both irrelevant and counter-productive to coming to the same conclusion in the end.

You’ve edited the first comment I replied to so I cannot quote you.

Also, I’m sorry, the “best possible light” interpretation of “she became black” is that it isn’t racist. It’s racist. Not considering it racist is pretty fucking disgusting.

This is an ad hominem though, as you’re attacking the arguer’s morals instead of employing a proper argument.

As for the example “she became black”, in the context it was uttered Trump is arguing in his frenetic junk speech, that Kamala was using her mixed race to her advantage and gave examples where she appealed to her Indian or Black heritage distinctly due to the context in an attempt to manipulate that core audience. He makes no value judgments on those races or uses it to belittle them (as far as I can recall), which detracts from the racism accusation (although, obviously he is but I can’t be bothered to dredge up all that BS). He is simply saying: “she’s blatantly pandering”. An argument that I begrudgingly agree with (I hate that I do trust me).

That said, while his argument is sound, I am unconvinced because I don’t blame her for pandering to people that share her heritage. If I could I would be too in her shoes, and frankly the obvious counter of “Trump also panders to those that share his heritage (white incels)” is unnecessary but implied in her rolling of eyes / mocking facial expressions.

Edit: Indian and Black -> Indian or Black

Technically yes, you should evaluate those statements in the best light possible with the intention of rebutting with a valid counter-argument that results in a rational conclusion. Absurd declarations are typically the easiest to do so.

In your examples even the moderators evaluated it in their best light. They didn’t jump to declaring donald “the dumbest person alive” and/or “pro-immigrant executions” (although I would have found it hilariously entertaining). They simply said “here is our evidence disproving that claim”, and that is more than enough.

Back to the point of this discussion, you’re jumping to Ad Hominems instead of evaluating their good argument: That the ‘still(?!) undecideds’ will probably not agree with the interpretation that the journalist won because they’re idiots.

I mean, we’re talking about people that still, to this day despite all the evidence, are unsure about who they should vote for. If you’re trying to convince me that the undecideds are mental giants looking for the perfect rational argument to sway them one way or the other then you’re fighting an uphill battle.

The rest of the paragraph makes it clear the writer is speaking from how donald’s advisor (and sycophants) see it. ie:

the best result he could expect.

Not ‘only valid’, not ‘we’. It is not absolute proof, but, if you consider yourself a rational arguer then it is your duty to interpret statements in the best light possible.

I wonder why they aren’t sympathetic?