![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0d5e3a0e-e79d-4062-a7bc-ccc1e7baacf1.png)
Since I’m not a programmer - how do I get it running?
new profile: https://lemmy.world/u/antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Since I’m not a programmer - how do I get it running?
Maybe you shouldn’t even have had your account on the largest server to begin with?
Maybe I didn’t have my crystal ball nearby when I was creating my Lemmy account.
Maybe many users will have an account on the largest server, because by definition it’s the largest server, with the most users. 🙄
I live in a country with a relatively similar political climate as Poland (highly religious, post-communist, wannabe central Europe). And I used to use the same argument when I was surrounded by more conservative people. The argument is IMO frequently invoked not by people who are truly worried about children (which I’ll write about below), but by conservatives who need a civilised, “agnostic” argument for their homophobic stances. But ofc it’s better to assume good intentions, at least if you don’t know anything about the person using the argument (as e.g. here).
The biggest problem with the argument is that it’s purely reactive and, under the hood, disingenuous. Children bully each other horribly already for a million stupid reasons - their shoe brand, their phone brand, their behaviour, etc. or just so, for no detectable reason at all. They also bully their teachers and professors. What is done against all this? Absolutely nothing, as far as I see (and I’ve seen and heard plenty while I was growing up). It is never brought up as a problem in public discourse, nobody seems to care too much. Bullying somehow becomes a big problem and relevant for the lawmaking only when gay parents are a possibility.
In general, from what I’ve seen, bullies will find just about any reason to target a kid. Adding one more to the roster seems borderline trivial. E.g. a lot of existing bullying is class-based - my younger sister was mildly ostracised in the primary school for a while because she wore the clothes my mother sewed for her, without a brand or anything, suggesting we don’t have the money to buy “proper” clothes. Should we, then, try to separate poor kids from the rich kids, so the poor don’t get bullied? Or just forbid poor kids from going to school?
Thus, instead of doing anything against the actual problem – that is, bullying as such – the laws of the state, the fundamental right of a child to a family, etc. should all buckle down before some child bullying? A child should be denied growing up with a potentially good and loving family with LGBT parents, and instead be adopted by a potentially inferior heterosexual family (assuming the adoption centres have some sort of system to judge the adopters in advance), or stay without a family at all indefinitely, because someone could/will bully them based on their most intimate and safe space, that is their family? Just as it would be monstrous to forbid poor kids from going to school to “protect” them from bullying, it is monstrous to propose “to protect some kids from bullying, we’ll deny them from having a family”. The whole argument is actually (or should be) an argument for aggressively rethinking and reworking your educational system , parenting and culture in general.
because why should these children be victims of war that is not even theirs to fight
Under the current system they’re also victims and involved in this same war - a part of their potential adopters is denied by default, and they stay without a family for longer. Are they not victims here? (Not to get into the issue of measuring potential benefits of having a family against the potential negatives of bullying, it’s purely arbitrary and depends on the given culture too.)
On the other hand, I do think the whole discussion has been derailed by overly focusing on this as an LGBT issue rather than an issue of children without families. So there’s some merit at least in the general approach of the argument you present (the children are those whose well-being is most important here), but it leads to the wrong conclusion, usually because it’s invoked by people who really just want to get to that conclusion one way or another, rather than helping the kids.
This is the first time in my life I’ve seen dislike of the userbase of an another site called ‘xenophobia’.
Especially weird since 90% of Lemmy is fresh off reddit themselves.
Personally I just don’t want the shitty aspects of the reddit community seeping over here. It’s a fact that reddit userbase has been facebookised, to the degree where I frequently see people who are outright stupid (repeatedly posting threads to wrong subreddits, ignoring mod messages, unable to comprehend basic English… stuff that I’d expect to see on Facebook and not reddit), or focused on memes and quips to the point where any discussion is flooded with such moronic content. There’s still (at least) tens of thousands of people on reddit who I’m sure would be great contributors on Lemmy too if they decide to switch, and I hope they will. But I don’t want all of reddit here. Is that really so bad, to not want to look at unfiltered normie crap? Reddit was good (if it ever was good) precisely because it was a bit elitist in its design and its culture.
We can’t argue about federation on the net, avoiding corporate control, or whatever while sticking our hand out and stopping people from joining.
Maybe people can join somewhere else too? Make a Fediverse equivalent of Facebook/Instagram or something. Lemmy is not all of Fediverse and doesn’t have to be for everyone.
Like half of your complaints are literally good things. Yes, people want to be heard and not practically hidden from 90% if they don’t get enough upvotes on their post/comment during the crucial early time frame, as on bigger reddit subs. Lemmy is not a social media platform anyway, its goal is not to facilitate socialisation among the users and it doesn’t need many millions of users to work well.
they are often expensive and not everyone can afford those
the average costumer and mobile data plans which are **mostly certainly inevitably caped **
I’m sure you know a lot about the pricing and internet caps across the entire world. 🙄
So you understand the system very well, yet completely ignore the ethically dubious aspects of the system.
People are not born desiring harmful garbage. They are, at least in part, taught, conditioned to desire it.
When you say that a site “feeds you whatever you want”, you’re ignoring the chicken-or-the-egg pattern of desire and satisfaction on the market. The site teaches you want you want. Internet addiction and the ways in which contemporary media and tech affect your mind (most obviously by reducing people’s attention spans) are fairly well known today.
Imagine a drug dealer who sells his garbage to the same person so much that they develop an addiction. With your logic, we can just blame the junkie who keeps returning to the dealer, while the dealer is pretty much innocent - surely it’s not his responsibility if someone else develops an addiction and destroys their life!
You can relativise things all you want, it’s a fact that online insanity does leak back into the reality. For example see Qanon, or Brenton Tarrant, who used to frequent 4chan and 8chan. Not to mention the more trivial things such as people openly agreeing with Andrew Tate, or becoming fans and voters of Donald Trump due to his online presence, etc.
If you know people IRL that believe lgbt people shouldn’t exist, I guess I feel bad for you and who you associate with.
Did you just spin this into a covert ad hominem? Nice job, but I don’t “associate” with every person whose views I hear espoused IRL.
I don’t know anyone at all like that, not even close to that.
Ok? But why assume that every community and society is exactly like yours? From your other comments I notice you’re from Canada, I hope you’re aware your political culture isn’t typical for the rest of the world, not even for the entire “west”.
I don’t feel the need to defend the most extreme examples of dumb things you’ve read online that someone else posted.
Right, so you didn’t have to claim such people and such extreme positions literally don’t exist - with caps lock, no less. I probably wouldn’t think of replying to you if you didn’t formulate it so categorically.
No one. NO ONE, think LGBT people shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
What I’ve heard IRL and what I’ve read online in less moderated spaces speaks to the contrary.
Ridiculous. I love it.
They’re already acting. The guillotine is now erased.
They’re not touching the “fuck spez” signs, true. Still, remember that in the last edition there was a massive amogus cock extending across half the canvas throughout most of the event and it was eradicated by the end as well. So based on that I wouldn’t bet the “fuck spez”-s will survive either. (Not that their survival would mean anything…)
Until moderators just cover it all with random pixels, as they did for similar controversial/NSFW stuff in '22.
disappointing those who desire interaction with Threads
Maybe those rare few (deranged) people should just go create a Threads account? This is a very unconvincing attempt at appearing “objective”.
context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnacon
The first known description of the bonnacon comes from Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis Historia:
There are reports of a wild animal in Paeonia called the bonasus, which has the mane of a horse, but in all other respects resembles a bull; its horns are curved back in such a manner as to be of no use for fighting, and it is said that because of this it saves itself by running away, meanwhile emitting a trail of dung that sometimes covers a distance of as much as three furlongs (604 meters or 1,980 feet), contact with which scorches pursuers like a sort of fire."
fck you descriptivist
You mean prescriptivist? 😅
(beep boom I’m a human)
Yes, that sounds very much like the other descriptions of the issue that I’ve come across.
Seconding SPD. Of all Android games, I think I’ve wasted the biggest part of my life on that one. An extremely well balanced and fair roguelike, even if that sounds contradictory.
while artists get very little payout from it
This! I’ve seen people claim they like Spotify because it’s legal and you support the artist that way, but the actual money they get from each song-listening is comically miniscule compared to the profit from the traditional mediums (vinyl/CD).
Some stuff is too obscure to be on Youtube, and IIRC the bitrate there is only 192kbps. It’s acceptable as far as I care, but I would still look for better rips if available.
Honestly going for the ‘largest’ instance is kind of dumb. Smaller, faster instances provide a much better experience. Bigger is not better in the fediverse.
Ok, but how is a new user supposed to know that?
Damn, I didn’t figure out you’re supposed to click on the releases. Thank you.