What specific problems does the government cause for this non-profit, exactly? What "authoritarian" policies is this "left" you speak of enacting which harms the needy?
sparkle
joined 7 months ago
non-furries don't even approach normal, they've utterly rejected the concept of normalcy. especially the straight christian ones... blegh... i trust nobody on lemmy is like that, else we might have to nuke the place and start over
Honestly I hate the fact that browsers' default CSS exists. The person doing the frontend should have to specify their "default" CSS before the website even loads. I say this as both a user and a programmer, the same website shouldn't look different or break on different browsers unintentionally due to the browser's CSS, and I as a developer shouldn't have to rely on reset sheets to try to patch that.
Everything would be better if it were swapped around, instead of picking out a reset sheet for a site you pick out a default style...
The world would also be better if browsers rendered pugjs/slim and scss/sass and those were the default rather than html and css but I digress...
Andy Beshear.
Realistically it's going to be Josh Shapiro, Roy Cooper, or Mark Kelly. Shapiro because he'd guarantee the Pennsylvania vote and tear anyone apart in a debate, Cooper because he'd secure the NC vote and probably boost the southern vote in general, and Kelly because his background is as American as possible, plus he'd get us Arizona. Tim Walz is another likely pick imo, partially because Minnesota vote and all, but he's not as appealing in a campaign as many of the other choices.
Out of all of these, Shapiro seems like the strongest choice to me if he takes off his glasses. Cooper probably offers the most up-front and is exactly what Americans think of when they hear the words "vice president", but Shapiro would probably perform the most impressively in public speaking & debates, and Kelly would probably give the best public image.
Beshear probably is the most progressive and has the best platform out of all of the likely candidates, but he's made the critical mistake of being from Kentucky, which is definitely NOT a swing state, which means he doesn't by default guarantee extra votes. The Democrats would have to run a very good campaign to utilize Beshear's full potential, but considering all the finding pouring in I think it'd work out in their favor.
The Democrats will not put 2 women or 2 non-whites on the same ballot. It's just not happening. The nominee will be a white guy. Raphael Warnock is unbelievable in his campaigning/charisma, but Americans are too racist for a Harris-Warnock ballot to be a viable option in terms of votes. Same goes for Harris-Whitmer.
If Newsom becomes the VP pick I'm going to yeet myself off a cliff...
Compared to other languages... If those other languages are Romantic, North Germanic, Dutch, Afrikaans, or Frisian. A majority of other languages are typically considered more difficult for people who only speak English.
That being said, I found Russian way easier than German at first, but that quickly stops being the case... German shares a lot of semantic/syntactic similarities with English so you can reasonably assume that a lot of German constructions will easily translate to English, for Russian though it's more unfamiliar and you have to put more effort into thinking Russian-y. The main thing that made German way harder at first is German declensions... ugh... Russian has a complex declension system but it's extremely regular, while German declensions are pretty irregular and the declension of articles is especially bad because their forms overlap a lot. Adjective declension is similarly bad. German word order also fucked with me a lot but it's decently rigid so you get it quickly.
Skill issue
That's one difficult thing, it can be pretty hard to tell from the outside whether it's the product of grooming or not. The same goes for a lot of very legal types of relationships though, so I don't think the possibility of it happening is a reason to completely criminalize it. The difference compared to the other things listed (children and animals) is those things can't consent, it's an impossibility.
I think enforcing some arbitrary age gap maximum for siblings though would make sense – incest between parents and children should be illegal full stop imo, and it's hard to believe that any relationships between siblings who are 10 years apart isn't from grooming.
That being said, I'm not sure that with our current shitty justice, law, and health system (in the US) that it's worth it to start giving equality to those types of relationships considering we just don't have the infrastructure or society to effectively prevent the legality being used to facilitate grooming. Society is too corrupt to prevent or bring justice for abuse at the scale needed. But people made similar arguments for incest being illegal as for interracial relationships being illegal so maybe I'm wrong.
Fascism in the most vague sense that you can get while still being accurate is enforcement of a hierarchy, practically no social mobility, based on traits like ethnicity, sex, wealth, etc. supposed to be the "natural order" of society; often involving some sort of mythological/religious/idealized "past" or predecessor society/civilization which was then upended by some sort of evil group(s) (the targetted groups/scapegoats), which stole from us and which are an evil that need to be stopped. This, of course, is slightly different from how Mussolini's fascism was originally visualized – which was a corporatist nationalist dictatorship about "might"/the strong coming out on top (translated into militarism) justified by religion/mythology (in fascist Italy's case about being the successor to the great ancient Rome and seeing through to a greater Roman Empire) – but it's how the world has become to understand the concept of fascism as time went on.
This is the reason many see capitalism as sort of "diet fascism" – it's entirely about a hierarchy based around socioeconomic class/groups, with highly restricted social mobility (although not completely closed off as fascism's is), and it's seen that your place in the hierarchy in a hypothetically purely capitalistic system is the natural order of things – your place in the hierarchy is supposedly based on how hard you work, rich people are rich because they've simply worked smarter and harder than the people under them, and anyone can go up the hierarchy if they simply just are a better person. Of course, in reality we know this doesn't work and among other things generational wealth & systematic roadblocks created by the wealthy play a major factor in this hierarchy, but I digress. The reason classical liberalism / free market capitalism hates class equality, hates a system like socialism which calls for abolishing unjust hierarchies, is because it sees the abolition of the socioeconomic/class-based hierarchy as going against the natural order and forcibly placing people in the "wrong" places in the hierarchy (all on the same level) when some people deserve to be below others because they're lazy, illegal immigrants, "criminals", etc. In essence, they see equality not as equality, but as an "upside-down" hierarchy where the former upper class is forced below the formerly marginalized groups; to a more privileged person, equality feels like oppression. Capitalism needs an underclass to function, in a capitalistic system people with certain traits always have an unequal distribution throughout the hierarchy (scapegoated/marginalized groups significantly tending to pool at the bottom with only a few "token" examples truly traversing upwards, and people closer to the top of the pyramid being less and less prone to falling down the hierarchy). It sounds a lot like fascism, because fascism and capitalism are ideologies/systems with loosely equivalent structures but capitalism being far less pronounced.
Additionaly, classical liberalism & moreso conservative capitalism are centered around reggressing to a supposed "golden age" of the past where things were better before "they" ruined it (whoever "they" is and what specifically "they" did is vague and changes from belief to belief but usually includes taxation/redistribution of wealth/power away from the people at the top of the hierarchy, or some shift in the hierarchy). It's like a much less pronounced form of the mythologized predecessor civilization/society of fascism, instead of hundreds or thousands of years ago it's more like 30-40 years ago.
Fascism in the way we currently understand it doesn't even strictly require dictatorial/autocratic rule, it can be enforced in a technically "democratic" system as long as certain groups are excluded from the democratic process. Of course, the line between democracy, broader oligarchy, narrower oligarchy, and autocracy becomes blurrier the more of the population you exclude, since democracy is more of a spectrum than anything, but generally there's a lot of possible fascist systems where people would still consider it democratic enough. Your perspective is pretty deeply tied to which group you belong to as well – the average German thought Nazi Germany was a democracy even when Poland was invaded and throughout much of the war, but obviously the Roma and Jewish populace being genocided would definitely not agree. Capitalism does this exclusion to a large extent too – just usually not in the form of outright completely banning a group from participating – and the upper classes have signficantly more say in the democratic process, to the point where the upper classes can choose to completely eliminate options they collectively dislike enough from the equation regardless of the consent of the lower classes.
Overall while fascism and capitalism aren't a complete overlap, fascism is for the most part a progression of capitalism (or, as more and more people see it, capitalism is a derivation of fascism and/or feudalism where we keep trying to patch up the flaws using a few socialist/progressive/democratic qualities) and pretty much requires a capitalist (or capitalist-adjacent) system to exist. Fascism can't use, say, a socialist system because socialism inherently requires working towards the abolition of the power structures/hierarchies which fascism is based around. Of course, in fascist systems the supposed "superior" class often has power redistributed to them in the form of e.g. social welfare benefits and infrastructure investments, which isn't straight up classical liberalism obviously, but that doesn't necessarily violate capitalism/the capitalist power structures as a whole, it's just using a different form of capitalism in order to keep the currently-not-scapegoated but also-not-highest castes content and thinking that things aren't so bad.
If you have any questions about this or can't see the reasoning of certain parts, I'm sure I (or someone else) will be happy to answer it for you.
US international layout, or make a custom layout (KbdEdit is multiplatform but there's free Linux programs to do it too)
Suggestions/autocorrect will likely come within the next 2 months when 0.5 releases
It's also easily customizable and will likely have an in-app layout editor by 0.6
Brains transmit/change state (a.k.a. think) using electricity. It's basically a flesh computer. You can't read thoughts without being able to measure the brain's electrical/chemical activity. If you had any theoretically possible mind-reading (and by extension mind-controlling) technology, it would still need to physically connect to your neurons or something...
That being said, I don't imagine it'd be too hard for sci-fi future folk to stick a chip in every newborn's brain from the get-go. But that's a future too far from now, we'll all be dead by then probably.
4 out of 330 is quite a lot. Are they tech youtubers or something?