g0nz0li0

Curse words themselves don’t reduce the impact of a sentence on their own. Context is important.

I’ll try ask this in a different way: can you think of a time when a curse word seemed to fit the context of the point being made, or enhanced the impact, or felt powerful or eloquent? Can you remember and share the context of it?

Are you saying there’s never a time where a curse word is appropriate, mr_no_swearing?

You’re talking about a different issue. It just happens to feature a lot of cursing. But cursing itself does not make a remark less clever.

I agree that cursing is often used as a replacement for “um”. But you ever really appreciate someone who knows how and when to curse, with intention and as an infliction? It’s a joy to behold.

The price hurt. But the flipside is I use this every day for multiple hours so in the long run its worth it.

Others do show interest but are immediately turned off by the price. Unfortunately it keeps it niche.

I use a Supernote Nomad which is (IMO) their more capable competitor. I’m a messy thinker and a messy writer so the ability to scribble things down then move and resize paragraphs and easily tidy things up is great. I can have multiple notebooks and Supernote allows you to set headings, use tags, and create links between notes/notebooks to easily navigate, find, and reference things. It also lets me select text and add it to a built in reminder app so I have a systemwide list of things I need tondo with due dates etc. The reminder links to the note you created it from so you can easily refresh yourself on content.

The Nomad is also small, like a travel notebook, so it’s always with me at work. It has a lovely vegan leather book-style case, the stylus is a chunky metal pen with a ceramic tip, and the Nomad has a texture on it that depresses like paper as you write. So it’s also just a really nice and straightforward writing experience when you need it to be, with digital conveniences a few taps away.

Flat white is always made with some milk foam on top, traditionally less than a Latte.

So the difference should be in the ratio of coffee to milk to froth, which is also true of other varieties like cortado.

According to the article, the owner who was sued stated in court:

when she was asked if she would accept a transgender woman as female if they had medically transitioned and were legally recognised as one, she “would not view that person as a woman”.

So it sounds like a case of the owner wanting to apply their own view without regard for how the law recognises gender in this day and age.

I’m not up to speed on the discovery you linked. It appears to be a vulnerability that can’t be exploited remotely? If so, how is this the same as Intel chips causing widespread system instability?

Very well made point, imo.

Do you mean lower growth in numbers? Lemmy.world recently posted users for August and it grew by a healthy amount.

Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole

I’ve never argued or suggested this. I’m enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(

people are probably amenable if you use the right approach

Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.

your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them

And I think this is the core contradiction in what you’re trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you’re gay (let’s say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You’re being discriminated against.

For the record I wouldn’t yell “Fuck you Bill!” in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say “Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I’m not saying Bill shouldn’t be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP:

if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief

Amen brother. Everyone should be prepared to be face criticism, because no one is altruistic and never will be if they can’t bear to be challenged about their beliefs.

you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it.

Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.

So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?

The republican platform is fucked up, but if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief.

…is the part of your argument I am responding to. Saying “don’t five people a hard time for supporting fucked up things” is pretty fucked up.

Wrong again:

During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women’s ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother’s health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and “narrowly tailored” to protecting mothers’ health.[7] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state’s interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother’s life or health

Is the Republicans platform not anti-abortion?

Not familiar with those states but after a quick search:

Florida has an an abortion plan that permits prosecution of a women as a third degree felony in some circumstances.

Kansas prohibits abortions after 22 weeks and “a woman who seeks an abortion will be given state-mandated propaganda designed to change her mind. She will then have to look at an ultrasound image, wait 24 hours and pay for the procedure out of her own pocket.”

“Not as bad” isn’t really a W.

You can’t just paint them all as evil as you imagine

Perfectly illustrates my point. I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”. Branding that as insulting or hateful is just attempting to dodging accountability by disingenuously claiming victim status.

Party allegiance aside, it’s unreasonable and hypocritical for anyone to support a platform with an agenda that will directly and adversely impacts broad swathes of society with an expectation that they will not be directly or adversely impacted by their actions and decisions (which in this case is something as innocuous as simply drawing criticism).

Your comment implies that people take insult when someone calls them out for supporting a platform that - just to take one example - decides it’s proper to prosecute victims of crime because they also think the government should have jurisdiction over woman’s body and a say in their health and wellbeing.

Is them taking umbrage to valid crisis the real issue here?