I see you wrote that you’re thinking about making it FOSS. What’s the alternative? Paid software/non-free license + Open Source or proprietary? If you’re low on time and don’t have the capacity to maintain (bugfixes/reports from users) yourself then I say proprietary is a no-go. Then about the license - IMO (though I don’t have hard data on that on hand) people much more likely contribute to FOSS as opposed to locked in license + open source model.

Ah, much better

Weird, totally opposite at Memmy - can’t click ones with !

I’ll submit an issue I guess.

What…the… Why?

Thank you for an in-depth answer!

About lack of possibility to accommodate both pro-life and pro-choice: so to sum it up your stance is to force them out from academia? Pro-life believe abortion is murder - argument about “equitable society” is unlikely to convince somebody that it’s okay to kill in the name of it. At the same time same person can be all in for inclusion, diversity etc. Isn’t this the perfect example of perfect being enemy of good? Radicalization is going to make this and similar groups naturally fall into opposition if you keep forcing them out (and generate a lot of “martyrs” for the cause too). How is radicalization good here?

About compromise: I’d quote you my brother’s law professor:”What is the purpose of the law system? Justice? No! It’s to maintain the order, the system which makes everything work. It is to ensure predictability.” So are the compromises on eg. bodily autonomy morally justifiable from any perspective? No, both sides hate it. Both sides have politicians that want to be as realistic as possible to sway voters, change being just a side effect of the process.

I think what you propose (being more radical) is actually already slowly being implemented (again, by both sides) - problem is if both went with full on “we’re sure we’re right, we’ll make no step back” there would be a revolution or a civil war (no step back means also rapidly escalating reactions from opponents) and no one really wants that in political establishment or… any establishment really. Revolutions usually end in big changes one way or the other and if you’re already in establishment why risk it?

You’re proposing the progressive crowd to be more radical - do you have any views/proposed solution for people that do not see your way and are unlikely to - e.g. radical pro-life people (that tend to stick with right side on economic/education policies as, well, their world view doesn’t fit good with the left… even if some would gladly vote for more progressive economic policies).

So in your “ideal” scenario, which is it: a) No place for them in academia? I.e. force your will b) Let states decide? E.g. California implements some vanguard radical DEI policies while eg. Texas/whatever does it’s own thing and migration/ratings do the job. c) something else?

Probably to underscore it is not widely known - same as one might say something like that in an actual conversation even if not asked “do you know X” before.

[deleted]

That’s a great example - makes me wonder who actually liked it in the first place to sell it - my boss, his boss and basically everyone I knew hated open space. Where did this scourge originate?

Search history

I don’t get your point :) There are also longer and shorter movies - doesn’t mean that you’re attentive all the time when watching it, you just sit there in the theatre, of course you won’t leave after 15 mins.

That’s also why pacing is increasingly important in movies so that every N minutes you get something exciting and don’t get bored :)

Satire, Mattel headquarters is MIB/Scooby Doo crossover :D

That is indeed what is in Barbie - if you watch it and actually think about the themes. If you’re just there for the experience then the message is (quote moviegoer behind my back discussing with friends): “goddamn, this is a step in right direction, we won’t change this patriarchal world with one film however“ :P

On a basic level the message “Ken was silly, broke Barbieworld because he wanted to emulate men, they had to get Barbie and a feminist back to fix it” - and that’s what most people will get out of Barbie.

Attention span being shorter means you’ll be able to follow topic/problem for shorter amount of time.

Because of that regular media “reminders” like articles/reviews/editorials/opinions/reaction videos are needed to keep a topic “floating”. Optimal situation here was what you saw with “me too” campaign, different people sharing their story and media jumping on each of them individually until… yeah… until public outrage dies out.

Basically to force any change you need people feeling emotional about some issue for a longer period of time + somebody organizing (legislation proposition etc). There is so many issues (and more coming every day) that it’s really hard to make people actually feel anything about a cause for longer than a day in constant stream of “world is burning/world is unfair”. People become just disengaged and nihilistic.

This means to me that if you fight everything you fight nothing - e.g. you’ll never build large enough group of actually enraged and motivated people to actually pass anything if they try to fix everything at once.

What is interesting to me, however, is that these “reminders” of what you should be angry about/what the current issue is (I’m speaking of general Western Europe) are overwhelmingly non-business related. Eg. There is no “patriarchy corporation of men” to fight against, patriarchy doesn’t make much sense economically to present to board of directors so of course every company, movie studio and their dog is against. Same with sex/gender related issues - it’s rather some vague religious groups or politicians wanting to appeal to conservative voters that are against these kind of laws. Corporate likes what sells, if it has a rainbow flag on it and sells - cool then the corporate supports pride, simple as that.

I’m lacking issues being highlighted that go against this trope - there are some movies, from time to time, sure, if only the message was pushed with same energy and constant reminders like eg. “patriarchy bad, girls can do anything” which you see in every second movie/superhero movie/tv series.

I respectfully disagree. The attention span is getting shorter on average as is memory - we can debate less and less issues at once every year in my opinion.

Ngl, happy you asked :)

The percentage of capital owned by the richest 1% skyrocketing in recent decades (and rising sharply 2020+).

Monopolies in media/communication sphere getting larger by the day and utilizing them exactly like the monopolies would do (first example that pops to mind is Google and their web drm bullshit that will be implemented - just as anything what they want - because of their sheer dominance in web searching, tracking and browsing).

Why are there (at least as far as I see in Western Europe) almost no talks to how de-centralize people and make the local communities more self sufficient? Yeah I suspect why - it’s easier to build yet another skyscraper in London and sell flats for mountains of money - half of them or more to corporations that will rent it to people. This however (everybody swarming to city and insanely fast rising prices in relation to average Joe’s pay) is not a good idea both from ecological standpoint and economical wellbeing of middle class (how are you supposed to have at least some generational wealth passed if you and your kids will be renting everything starting with flat and ending with car or fridge). One solution (now that we don’t have a huge need for factories to have a lot of people living nearby) would be to incentivize growth of smaller communities between the cities (eg. lot’s of people work in services but some of them can be done via internet - offer lower tax when you live outside of major city, some can be regulated from government level to mandate certain number of remote hires residing outside of major city)

Even if my examples are flawed I am missing a discussion in the media about that - I don’t see blockbusters pushing these points, I don’t see politicians bringing that to everybody’s attention often (yes it happens but comparing to feminist or lgbtq issues it’s laughingly rare and weak message).

TBH came out of theater sad - I’m a bit surprised I don’t see more of these “if you don’t like Barbie you’re insecure” comments in media (so far just some Daily Mirror stuff so pretty much nothing). It’s a great argument if you wish to burn someone in conversation but a bit insane point to make IMO.

Is “not being insecure” just letting go with whatever the entertainment complex shits out? Saying “I am a strong, confident person” and then just doing absolutely nothing out of ordinary if you dislike something? “Fitting in”? Sounds pathetic to me.

I think this movie was terrible - not by production value (however a bit too much talking too little action for a comedy movie) but by being yet another one to divide to ever-smaller tribes. Yet another thing to distract from the have vs have-not’s debate. The means of production/economic system debate.

No, let’s see if you like the latest flavor of feminism, up until another flick (maybe pro-life/pro-choice, LGBT or whatever) comes out and then let’s obsess about sexuality for a bit. Then back to square one while the actually important stuff just passes above everyone’s head.

Damn there is a new season coming? Yeaaaah!