Urist

I reiterate: All resources are ultimately finite. There is however more than enough for all if extracted sustainably and shared somewhat equally. Under redistribution schemes, the poor stop being poor because having basic needs met increases social mobility. Also production increases because it is in many cases artificially restricted due to the consumers being too poor to buy the things they want and/or need.

Resources are ultimately finite, regardless of method of extraction. The poor people would get richer faster with better distribution and research supports basic reasoning that the pie would get bigger if distribution was better.

Could not replicate the information I had gotten earlier on Discord for some specific project. Also, even if it did it would probably still be only an API change away from not working.

It is much easier for lots of western progressives (i.e. moderates if that label was used properly) to fix a naming scheme than reevaluate the exploitative structures on which their lives are based.

I made the switch a couple of days ago. Just downloaded the forgejo binary, renamed it to gitea and dropped it in as a replacement. Now I am running forgejo successfully.

Just popping in to say the level of reflection and accurate analysis between you and parent comment is dazzling. Spot on, friend.

Socialized people work with them on instinct, others can't do that.

This is a valid point. Some on the autism spectrum, for example, have difficulties due to lack of this instinct.

And my point was that boundaries are never that clearly defined.

This is also true, but not so much a problem. Everyone is bound to overstep at some point. However, that is most likely going to yield a negative response from the other person, and it is actually somewhat their responsibility to express this plainly. Where jerks and unaware people diverge in action is how they respond to being made aware. Say sorry and not push further and you are in the clear.

I will admit there is a little bit of a problem with a supreme narrative based on personal experience if applied indiscriminately in every context. However, as long as it is confined to one's own body, it is perfectly fine since everyone should have their bodily autonomy respected and thus their experience is the supreme narrative in this instance always.

There are training one can do if one lacks social intuitition and basic rules like do not touch at spots other than briefly on shoulders etc. without consent. I have lots of sympathy for all those who struggle socially, but do not see laxing on demanding respect for others as being helpful in any way. I would also speak up if someone ridiculed a nice person for being just awkward, but that is not the issue discussed here.

Incel is an abbreviation of involuntary celibate. It is 100 % a self proclaimed title from the word "involuntary". I am merely categorizing those that label themselves as such to be often having a distorted view on sex and women. None of this was a philosophical debate on the existence of evil and my point was clearly defined: Timid, kind people should be a little bolder. Everyone should be mindful of other people's boundaries.

In my experience the technology related fields are greater perpetrators than the base sciences. Though there is still an image problem for things like math (the not tech, engingeering or finance version) and a problem with people outside the field having sxcist expectations about those in it, I genuinely think the environment itself to be very inclusive.

Just like there are lots of jerks and incels, there are lots of really nice shy guys that would make the world a better place by opening up a little more. Being brave at making contact is totally acceptable, and probably good for you, if you do it in a respectful manner. Actual nice guys should drown out the jerks that are self proclaimed nice guys by treating women, men and themselves with respect.

Medicine is more aligned with the cultural idea of "what a woman should be/do". Taking care of others, showing compassion and so on is regarded as more "feminine qualities" than "masculine". Note this is not something I agree with, but I think it probably is part of the picture.

I intended to make a joke, which I hoped would be evident from the triple exclamation marks. You calling it an attempt at a strawman and rejecting the joke on that basis is probably the closest to a strawman of the two.