1. My cat
2. Tough one, but probably my cat.
3. Not only do I love my cats, taking care of your pets if your responsibility as a pet owner. I have no love or relationship to a stranger, they don’t care about me and I don’t care about them, and It’s also not my responsibility to protect other people. An animal that I raised from near-birth, and who has always shown me basically unconditional love and affection seriously means as much to me as a child. My pets are there for me when I have a bad day, and they’re with me when I’m having a great day too. They bring so much joy and comfort into my life and they are so innocent and kind. Even after a lifetime of interactions I never have a single bad or negative moment with my pets. I don’t hate people and I wouldn’t like to have to decide in a fucked up scenario like you’re describing here. But to be honest, I’m probably saving my pet. Sorry.

Whatever you want to do in life, start right away.

• If you want to start a business, start developing it and putting the pieces into place as soon as you can.
• If you want to be a artist/musician/writer/etc, take yourself seriously and start gigging or creating right away.
• If you want to reach the top of the academic pyramid, study more than what you’re assigned and start developing your ideas.
• If you want to be involved in politics, then start getting involved in politics.
• etc…

I’m not saying this because it’ll be too late if you don’t, or anything like that. It’s never really too late to change course or start doing what you want.

But don’t wait until you’re finished school. Don’t wait until you feel “ready”. Dispel is the idea that you’re still a kid or that you’re just going through the motions until your life really begins. Life is now. So, plant the seeds of your future as soon as you possibly can.

I’d also say to develop a healthy attitude towards soft drugs like alcohol and weed.

Hard drugs can fuck your life up faster, but addiction to soft drugs can also do a lot of damage. Have fun, but keep perspective. You’re probably gonna be around people do stupid shit from time to time, but resist the temptation to be the person doing the stupidest shit.

Microsoft basically tied with Apple for the title of richest company in the world, by the way.

There are plenty of things that people do every day that contribute to the potential spreading of diseases, from every kind of sex to not wearing a mask when you’re sick.

To single out anal sex as a sign that homosexuality is immoral (despite the fact that vaginal sex can also spread diseases, and despite the fact that anal sex is not exclusive to gay people) is a sign that the person you’re talking to is biased and arguing in bad faith.

Ethically speaking, if someone wants to live by a moral system that differentiates between right and wrong based on the potential to spread disease, then that’s fine, but that logic still needs to be coherent and apply to all things, not just selectively to things that they dislike.

But anyway, if they’re sophists, you probably aren’t going to convince them. If you have to engage with that shit, then your best bet is probably the socratic method: ask them targeted questions to poke holes in their flawed logic until they back themselves into a corner. You know what they’re saying doesn’t make any sense, so simply asking them questions which reveal more contradictions will force them to adjust or abandon their position.

I wasn’t trying to imply that. I’ve edited my post to reflect that I’m speaking generally. Sorry.

Personally I think that asexual people also benefit from sex-positivity and an honest discussion about the wide variety of forms of sexual expression. When we stop treating sex as some dirty taboo thing, and when we start accepting that everybody wants something different out of it (or maybe doesn’t want it at all), I think it becomes easier to understand that all different kinds of people exist with different relationships to sex. That’s not only OK, but a good thing.

A lot of social ills have come from the idea that people who express different forms of sexuality are wrong, gross, bad, sinful, mentally ill, etc. The sooner we move past that flawed and harmful concept, the better, in my opinion.

We were doing so well in realising that all human beings are worthy individuals with emotional and intellectual depth, yet now so many of us don’t seem to see any problem with society encouraging many to reduce themselves to sexual objects.

Human beings, like most other animals and plants, are fundamentally sexual beings.

It’s good to value emotions and intellect, of course, but even before all of that comes the primitive basis of sexuality, sensual and sensory pleasure, and the propagation of species. Sex (with others or by yourself) is just as much a natural and core part of the human experience as eating, drinking, sleeping, and so on, and embracing sexual freedom and sex-positivity is in no way incompatible with emotional balance, intellectualism, or any other meaningful pursuit.

As such, masturbation or pornography aren’t inherently bad or problematic in any way.

There are absolutely potential problems surrounding pornography, like human trafficking, but those issues are separate things that can and should be treated and handled as distinct. We have the tools as a society to deal with human trafficking and sexual violence, and we can do it without throwing sexual freedom and bodily autonomy under the bus.

In my view the last thing we should do as a society is to continue to engage in mindless sex-negativity, which has a long documented history of direct ties to the persecution of women and LGBTQ+ sexual minorities, as well as needlessly shaming people (sometimes to the point of inflicting real psychological damage) for exploring the full space of sexual possibilities by themselves or with consenting partners. Like everything else, ethics, responsibility, moderation and legality are things to consider, but you can do all of that while still being sex-positive and open minded about personal sexual liberty.

Changing the way you think about and practice sexuality (your own, others, and in general) allows you to know yourself and others in a more intimate, authentic and human way.

Great news and I’m sure that more will follow.

I feel like I’ve given my answer to this question regarding Beehaw once before…

But as I see it, the main driving force and overall source of value for services like Lemmy, Kbin, Mastodon, etc., is federation. That is to say, federation among a wide variety of different users and servers across the fediverse using protocols like ActivityPub is what sets this entire thing apart from legacy centralized and corporate social media, like Reddit or “X”.

I was initially on Beehaw myself and I liked the mature and kind atmosphere, but I ended up splitting for Kbin due to issues with defederation (on top of being curious and interested in Kbin as an alternative software to lemmy). But whether we’re talking about “Beehaw.org” or “Kbin.social”, in my view the federation is a huge part of the appeal, and I wouldn’t see myself continuing to use a server if it cut itself off from the rest of the network, regardless of whether they did it for “good reasons” or not.

Like, if Beehaw wants to be just a significantly smaller and more highly moderated centralized alternative to Reddit, that feels like a pretty weak pitch which, at best, might end up with a community roughly the size of a classic forum. I’m not really interested in that. I want the Fediverse to succeed as a decentralized, open, scalable, and community-moderated alternative to legacy social media. Frankly, my interest in Beehaw as a community hinges completely on it being a part of that movement or not.

I can understand how federation may have posed significant challenges towards your goal of detailed moderation and creating a safe and friendly space, but only in the sense that you were possibly not fully prepared for the level of exposure to a large number of federated users. But even so, if Beehaw is ever to grow into something bigger (which, to be honest, is not a given, especially if you set out on your own as just another disconnected and insular social media website), you will eventually have to deal with the harsh reality that the kind of moderation that you’re interested in doing is going to be a significant challenge as your community scales, federated or not. (For example, you may be prepared to moderate content in English, but are you prepared to moderate content in other languages? How will you know when someone starts spreading disinformation and hate speech in Burmese?)

Finally, I think you might want to consider the general movement towards federated social media. Between ActivityPub and the Fediverse, Meta’s interest in federating Threads, BlueSky being developed around federation to some extent, federation support in things like WordPress, and a number of other social media platforms tip-toeing their way into the idea, I personally feel that there is a pretty interesting paradigm shift happening right now. Some of that has to do with moderation, responsibility and government pressure on big tech, I think.

But nevertheless, social media is gradually moving towards federation, and I think that’s a good thing for the internet as a whole. You nice people at Beehaw will really have to search yourselves to determine whether you see the value in federation (both in terms of connecting people, but also in terms of allowing various communities to self-moderate to some extent) or not.

I do hope you’ll stay, even though it means facing the growing pains of moderation challenges sooner rather than later, because the fediverse is better with us all connected and communicating together. I’ll be sticking with the fediverse with or without Beehaw, but I do wish you all luck in your goals should you decide to set out on your own.

• AI “content” is trivial to make and will soon be everywhere.

• Nobody wants to read, watch or listen to AI generated “content”

Infinite supply, zero demand. Sounds pretty devoid of value to me.

A home, for sure.

Expanding my business a bit would be reasonable.

Probably a car, even though it’s not always financially a great idea.

Any other big purchase that would enrich my life in some way (for example, broadening my education, getting a piano, traveling, putting together a family, etc.)

Part of my core philosophy is to never let other people define you. Define yourself and let other people define themselves too.

I’m not conflating anything. Just posting well-sourced and unbiased, objective historical record. Kind of odd how riled up that made you… (Remember, you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.)

Frankly I’m not really interested in your interpretation of that history, especially since you don’t seem to have a very good or nuanced grasp of it in the first place. There are plenty of smart, informed and qualified people who have written on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No offense but I’ll probably check out what they have to say before I check in with you.

Anyway, have a good one!

Are you under the impression that the Palestinians invaded Israeli lands in 1948, killing thousands of them?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Holy_War

Just in time for nobody to care.

Clearly not. There are a thousand ways to read a person. And they work pretty well.

Unless you can read minds, which you can’t (even with your tinfoil hat off), then you literally cannot know things which are not somehow expressed (through words, facial expressions, body language, actions, etc.). Words are the most direct way that the vast majority of human beings express themselves, as things like body language and action require third-party interpretation, which obviously adds a second layer of subjectivity, and considerable flaws in terms of misinterpretation, bias, etc.

I stated that it is a privileged class of information. One that is excluded from scrutiny because we declare scrutiny, in this case, untrustworthy.

Simply restarting your opinion may make you feel correct (which you’re entitled to feel), but it doesn’t actually change the objective truth:

Feelings are “excluded from scrutiny” not because “we [who?] declare scrutiny untrustworthy”, but because of the simple objective truth (that almost every human being has intuitively understood since the dawn of time) that the internal thoughts and feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable, and that we rely on expression to have a window into the minds of others.

If you believe that’s not true, then answer this:

If I tell you that I’m feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I’m not?

If you can’t answer that question, then you straight up have no argument in the first place, and that alone answers your original question.

So now I’ve lead you to water, and it’s up to you whether you drink or not. I’m not going to waste any more of my time on this.

Of course people lie, and they could easily lie about how they’re feeling. But what possible basis do you have to argue against what someone else says they’re feeling?

If I tell you that I’m feeling hungry, for example, how could you possibly make an argument that I’m not?

You could see that I just ate a sandwich, but that doesn’t mean I don’t still feel hungry. In fact, you could see that I just ate 10 sandwiches, but it’s entirely possible for someone to still feel hungry, based on how the brain and human psyche work.

The best case arguement is the opinion that a person’s actions are seemingly inconsistent with a certain stated feeling: for example a widow who says that she’s crippled with sorrow, only to be caught going on dates with other men. But again, you’re not arguing feelings there, you’re arguing an opinion about the consistency of behavior.

The feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable to us. Expression (words, facial expressions, body language, behavior, etc) is our only window into the feelings of others.

You see how this creates a privileged class of information, right?

No. It simply reflects the reality that human feelings are only knowable to others by means of expression.

If I tell you that I’m feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I’m not?

You have none. How I feel inside is unknowable to others. It is a fundamental truth of subjectivity.

Any information based upon a claim of suffering becomes inscrutable.

Objective truth and facts cannot be argued, only uncovered.

Likewise feelings, while subjective, cannot be argued, only expressed. (Again, because the feelings of others are unknowable.)

If you want to argue something, then I recommend arguing subjective opinions, and hopefully you do so based on a bedrock of facts.

That’s a good argument for disallowing it. It kind of breaks the system.

Disallowing what? Feelings? And what system?

I’m not even sure exactly what you’re asking here, but emotional states like suffering are subjective expressions of feeling, not opinions.

Trying to argue about some else’s experiences with regards to suffering is like trying to argue that someone isn’t happy, sad, cold, warm, hungry, thirsty, tired, scared, etc.

As always the ultimate authority on how a person thinks and feels is the person themselves.

In other words, you can argue opinions (hopefully based on a foundation of unarguable, objective facts), but it makes no sense to try to argue against another person’s feelings.

You could argue, if you do desired, the opinion that people are too emotionally sensitive, but even that seems like a waste of time to me, because it’s very unlikely emotional sensitivity is a choice. (If it was, you could also simply choose to be more empathetic and understanding of others, just in the same way that you want other people to become less sensitive to their own feelings.)

Personally I have better things to do with my time than argue about other people’s feelings.

How about Tom Petty? Southern rocker with great lyrics and no bullshit. One of the greats as far as I’m concerned.