Google doesn’t seem to find anything with that title when I Google it?

The Ash Tree seems to be some early 1900s story, and Daniel Harms doesn’t seem to have anything of that title as far as I can tell. :(

No, it was kind of a standalone type web forum. Greyish background, iirc.

Pretty sure I was linked it from Lemmy, and I don’t subscribe to no sleep here.

Well, not every metric. I bet the computers generated them way faster, lol. :P

To be clear, harassment and defamation are crimes in the US as well. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you can harm people with your speech with impunity. It’s a prohibition on the government from meddling with political speech, especially that of people who are detractors of the government.

I think the issue is that, while a country is certainly allowed to write it’s own laws, the idea that it is deeply fundamentally immoral for the government to prevent someone from saying something (or compel them to say something) is very deeply baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a part.)

So in the same way that a country is perfectly within its sovereign rights to pass a law that women are property or minorities don’t have the right to vote, I can still say that it feels wrong of them to do so.

And I would also decry a country that kicks out a company that chooses to employ women or minorities in violation of such a law, even if that is technically their sovereign right to do so.

Printing Nazi propaganda isn’t illegal in the US.

And I realize this isn’t in the US, obviously. But I think that the idea that the government shouldn’t be able to ban people from saying things, or compel them to say things, is so baked into the American zeitgeist (of which I am a member), that it feels wrong in a fundamental moral sense when it happens.

It’s the old, “I don’t agree with anything that man says, but I’ll defend to the death his right to say it,” thing.

I can see both sides on this one I think?

Out of curiosity, would you feel differently about this if it had been a print newsletter or physical book publisher that was printing Nazi propaganda that got shutdown because they refused to stop printing Nazi propaganda?

If so, what’s the substantive difference? If not, are you affirming banning people from publishing books based on ideological grounds?

Obviously banning books is bad, but obviously Nazis are bad, and that’s a hard square to circle.

I think he was talking about some of the questionable representation of the tribal peoples in the film.

A few I’ve been big on lately:

The Meat and Dairy Network Podcast - A British humor surrealist comedy podcast about the inner workings of the meat and dairy industry.

The Horror Virgin - A guy who hates scary movies has two friends who make him watch them.

The League of Ultimate Questing - High production actual play DnD podcast. Very funny with some fun hooks.

Midway Games stock is gonna shoot through the roof selling all the extra copies to make this system work. :P

I don’t understand why you think that guy was conflating communism and socialism. He claimed communism is moneyless, and in your response you said “neither is moneyless.” What’s being conflated?

And it’s worth noting that most definitions include, if not expressly the word “moneyless,” clauses about all property being held in common. And if there is no property, then there is equally no money, by definition (as money is simply a system for the valuation and exchange of property).

Why not just compare the model 3 to an 18-wheeler then? Those weigh way more. Would have made his point better.

And it’s a completely meaningful comparison, as long as you throw away the fact that different vehicles are used for different things.

A model 3 to an f150 is absolutely apples and oranges.

Do you do those things because you truly get enjoyment out of them, or are they simply your drug of choice to help you cope through to the next day?

Those are all things that can be enjoyed in a healthy way certainly, but if it’s just “wake up, work, binge internet, sleep,” every day, then I’m afraid you have a problem. Maybe not a full blown addiction, but at least an extremely unhealthy coping mechanism for some deeper underlying issues.

This is something that you can work on though. Ideally with the help of a professional therapist who can help you identify why you feel the need to cope in this way and help you start breaking those destructive patterns in your life.

You say you don’t like anything or give up on everything, but what does that look like? I assume that you don’t spend 8+ hours every day staring at a blank wall. You must do something to fill your time.

But if you are truly finding it difficult/impossible to be interested in the world around you, then your issue isn’t that you don’t have a girlfriend my dude. It sounds like you’re suffering from pretty severe depression.

And I hate to break it to you, but untreated mental illness is definitely a mood killer, and not just with the ladies. You’re gonna need to get yourself into a better place, or you’re gonna drive more than just romantic partners away.

But I’ll tell you, you’re awfully fatalistic for 35. Women tend to pretty holistically prefer guys in the 33-40 bracket. You’re not past your prime in the slightest. A little self confidence and a little investment in the world around you, and I think you’ll find that you will attract people no problem.

And hey, maybe I’m wildly off base. I know I’m making a lot of assumptions based off a very small paragraph. And maybe I’m reading you super wrong. If so, I apologize.

One thing to keep in mind though. The idea of a relationship and sex you have in your head? That’s a fantasy. Both are great things certainly, but when I was younger I feel like I built them up to be something deifying in my head. That once I had them, all my greatest desires would be met, and that life would be finally “complete” for me.

Understand that relationships are work. Fulfilling work, but work nonetheless. They require just as much “sticking to it” as any hobby that you haven’t stuck with, if not substantially more. And let me tell you, you’re absolutely not going to want to do it all the time. It requires a lot of dedication and perseverance.

And don’t build up sex to something more than it is. Its great, certainly, but I promise you’re putting it on a higher pedestal in your head than it deserves.

But all that to say, right now, you’re in love with the idea of a relationship, not the reality of one. I’m confident that you’d find the reality to not be what you’ve dreamed of it. And the problems and struggles you have in your life are rarely made easier by adding more work and responsibilities.

Take care of yourself and get to a point where you love yourself and the world around you as it is, and I think you’ll find that the rest of this will kind of take care of itself.

Why not just launch it directly but background the process so it doesn’t hang up your terminal?

Yeah, I’d be interested in how many people go to the inauguration of other countries heads of state.

Like, my best guess is that it’s a dig at, like, Gov Abbott, but I agree that I don’t think I’d expect him to, even if he was a Democrat.

But does it protect a company who is throwing out food that someone then eats? They aren’t a good Samaritan in that case.

And even if it’s lawful federally, they may run against local ordinances.

And even if every single thing is above board, that still doesn’t stop them from getting sued. It just means they’d win. But legal costs being what they are, it’s probably cheaper to just run off anybody who might be litigious before something can happen.

I think this theory of science is so prevalent in this thread because you have to adhere to it in order to dunk on Elon Musk.

I doubt most of these ardents would have taken this position in a random thread about sea cucumbers or something.

I like dunking on Musk as much as the next guy, but the amount of double-think people are willing to commit to to do it is always pretty off-putting to me.

It’s like every ArsTechnica article on SpaceX has people come out of the woodwork to say that their accomplishments are trash and not even worth reporting because of Elon, which, like, you have to be delusional if you don’t think SpaceX is absolutely killing it.

Believing in alchemy isn’t quite the slam dunk you think it is, since at the time we didn’t even know atoms existed, lol. It turns out that people who have massive gaps in the information available to them come to wrong conclusions sometimes, lol.

You’re just restating the position that I’ve already argued a ton elsewhere in the thread, so instead I’ll ask for a moment of introspection.

Do you believe you would have taken this stance if Elon Musk hadn’t taken the opposite one?

You are currently arguing that Isaac Newton wasn’t a scientist until that moment someone found his notebooks, at which point he magically became one. You’re arguing that none of the people who did the research on nuclear physics during WW2 that led to the development of the atomic bomb were scientists, since none of that research was intended for publication or peer review.

Would you have said Oppenheimer wasn’t a scientist outside of the context of this image we’re responding to?

At this point I just feel like I’m arguing against people who are knowingly taking a position they never would have taken if not to “own Elon Musk.” It’s the knee jerk reaction of “I can’t agree with that person I hate, so I’ve gotta argue the opposite.”

Which, look, I get the hate and like to see him dunked on as much as the next guy, but it’s the definition of arguing in bad faith if you don’t actually believe the thing you’re arguing for.