Scammer text message

I know you probably didn’t mean it like this, but I’m one of those people who “realized” I didn’t need to conform to being traditionally masculine, and this is definitely not something the average person can or should do. If you don’t try your best at “being a man,” When you’re younger other men will bully you, most women will either think there’s something wrong with you or not want to talk to you, and your parents will wonder what they’re doing wrong. Even people with super accepting parents end up feeling weirded out by “non manly” people because it’s not the norm. When you get older a lot of these issues get easier because you can choose who you associate with, but I still get people either commenting or treating me worse because I’m not “manly” enough, almost never the opposite.

I have no idea what to do about this, I’m just saying living as a not traditionally “manly” will have the general population treating you worse for your whole life, and you’re either strong enough to deal with that and stick with only the people who don’t care about it, or you go back to being “manly”

If you respond instantly at any point during the day it can mean you’re not doing anything the entire day or you’re actually desperate for interaction. If you don’t feel secure in your relationship with someone you might want them to think you have a lot going on.

Also, some research shows being less available can make you seem more valuable. This article is related to business relationships but it’s the same principle. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/smarter-living/benefits-of-being-scarce.html

I’m connecting using freestyle gunz which is still maintained and I can connect to it on windows

I’m glad for you that you don’t have any of the republican stereotypes currently in your life.

I’d like to note: neurodivergent people generally only become close with other neurodivergent people (NOT ALWAYS). neurodivergent people are a much smaller portion of society, and a lot of these people will be bullied or put down growing up and lose their self worth. EVEN IF they manage to regain their self worth completely, they generally have trouble communicating with people, and will generally have mild to negative social interactions. Now the people who have the most trouble interacting have to interact with 5x as many people since they likely would only become close with other neurodivergent people. I hope that’s obvious how insanely unfair that is.

Stuff like this is pretty hurtful to those people, because if this is all it takes for most people, hey I must really be worthless then because I’ve already done all this and I tried a hobby and I tried asking people out and none of it works! To those people, sorry you have to deal with this, you deserve someone who will be happy to be with you. I promise there are people out there that will value you specifically for who you are, even if they’re more rare. You can try joining things that you think will have people you’d enjoy hanging out with, whether that be playing games at a comic book shop or joining a dnd group, a choir, a band, or any niche interest you have (for me this is learning languages, and I met two of the coolest people I’ve ever met through that)

You’ve probably seen this but this video is basically exactly why this is the case. I suppose the only path forward is for democrats to exploit anything they can and go even lower (like increasing the number of justices so you get a majority) and then both parties race to see who can exploit the constitution more. I think no democrat wants to do this because it would be insanity, but the Republicans have been doing it for years so there really aren’t many options left.

You can say this but when a republican policy is “drill for more oil” and a democratic policy is “focus on clean energy,” one is easier, cheapens prices, and has readily apparent effects. Many democrat policies are long term goals that people won’t notice, and might even hurt them in the short term, but they need to be done. Medicare will increase taxes, supporting Ukraine and not taking Russian oil increases prices, and most people agree these policies are good things. Yet what is the biggest complaint under Biden? Skyrocketing inflation, because the average voter doesn’t care about policy they just care how it affects their lives.

You’re asking for an impossible solution if you want the party of “this is a hard decision but will benefit us all in the future” to have the same draw as “here’s cheaper prices NOW, we’ll ignore the future.” Not to mention as you already said republicans will block any and all attempts at real change. It’s completely unfair that even if 90% of a democrat candidate’s platform is beneficial, that’s not good enough since they don’t have the short-term effects to wow people with. If democratic policies reduced prices and republican policies increased them (say, swap the stances on oil and climate), we could have a literal potato as the candidate and people would run to vote for it.

This is why I use it, also the more people who use it the more accurate it is

This is 100% not true as I have personally had several times where I got ransomware (though still the thing I wanted to download somehow?) in late 2000s / 2010s. Hasn’t happened a single time since, even downloading the most sketchy torrents. For a lot of younger people, if they want to torrent something they’re not looking at trackers or much of anything, they just want the download. Windows defender used to be complete trash at preventing viruses so you’d need to know to download things like malwarebytes and be a lot more wary of what you download, and even if the torrent is 100% legit you’d have random registry/driver/software issues. Now these issues are rare unless you’re downloading some custom software or a much older game.

The one thing I would say was a lot easier back then is it would say “xyz free download” and it actually would be the thing itself instead of random bloatware.

Lol that is probably the funniest way to give a source I’ve seen

I find this happens any time I engage with anything anyone on the right also likes watching, like a gun channel, or a non-political video from a right leaning channel. I think the algorithm is just saying “I saw a republican watch this once so if you watched it there’s still some chance you’ll engage with this right wing content.”

I think it pushes it so heavily because it’s a gold mine (to the algorithm) since content by those channels is so heavily consumed.

I would rather say we should make it illegal to do things that cause an inordinate amount of suffering to animals. I would prefer not to kill the dog either, but since most people in this thread seem to believe a vegan diet with supplements is impossible for carnivore pets, what other option is there?

Personally I see some difference between a dog and a human just as I see a difference between an ant and a dog, probably based on how consciously aware they are. Obviously I would hope to have legal or social consequences for people who eat meat. However If I had someone who would pay someone else to torture 1 animal a day, and then eat it, meaning ~30,000 animals would be tortured throughout their life, and I have no way to make them stop besides killing them, what is your proposed solution? I want to hear the non utilitarian answer to this problem, in this hypothetical where killing them is the only way to stop the behavior.

The most “moral” thing to do would be for vegans to make it impossible for factory farming to exist, but veganism is still a minority and doesn’t have that kind of power. You’ve baked in that the only options are “kill people who eat meat” or “do nothing.” In a situation where all humans were strict carnivores, that’s a much harder question. Should someone be allowed to exist when their existence relies on the suffering of others? I don’t know and luckily I don’t have to know because we can stop factory farming without killing anyone, and put pets on a maybe-suboptimal-requires-monitoring “abusive” diet, rather than factory farming millions of animals for them.

e: this is basically just a more complicated version of the trolley problem, would you kill one person to save 4 others? what about kill one person to save 200 animals? I guess if you don’t value animals at all, you would never kill the person. For me, yes at some point there would be a limit, where that is it’s hard to answer.

Yeah I think it’s just some people are not trying to “communicate” rather they’re just doing it because it’s fun for them (and some others). Sort of the “talking because they like to talk.” I used to also be pretty annoyed by it but I had a friend use them all the time and sort of just got used to it. Even if it did still annoy me I don’t like to ruin someone’s fun, so I’ll just be a bit mad and carry on (and then complain to other people it annoys)

Is this meant to prove or disprove it?

There are some commercial vegan diets available which have synthetically made nutrients to replace those found only in animal based ingredients.

There may also be some that do not meet the safety and nutritional standards of other types of food. Manufacturers should provide information to show it is nutritionally complete and balanced. This information can be difficult to find and understand, so it’s important to speak with your vet for advice too.

If you want a real answer, ethically you should not have gotten a carnivore in the first place and reduce the demand for carnivore pets. After that it’s just a math problem, how many factory farmed animals will that dog eat throughout it’s life? You won’t like this answer, but what’s more humane, euthanasia of 1 dog, or factory farming of ~4 animals (who had lives anywhere from constant suffering to just slightly suffering) throughout it’s lifespan.

The point of the emoji at the end was to “add some more feeling/fun to text content,” like if I ended a comment with “I couldn’t stop smiling while writing this.” It’s irrelevant but it changes the flavor of the text.

Besides that, many lemmy users are on the spectrum and will read “Donald Trump is known for his great border policies” in a comment that it’s clear they’re joking, and they will still have -5 score and comments arguing with them until the poster says “it was a joke.” Compare that to “Donald Trump is known for his great border policies 🤡” or 🙄 or 💀 depending on how obvious you want to be. It’s just a tool that can be misused or annoying like anything else.

well yeah if the person writes 😪😔🤥 it’s not clear what they mean, but this poster gave an example sentence that’s pretty unambiguous, and is using the emoji as a tool to make it even more unambiguous, are they not? 🤔

Just feels unfair to lump 🗨💣💨🤳 style emoji usage with “let me put 😆 to make it more clear this is a joke” 🥺 (also sometimes it’s just what the writer is feeling, rather than trying to be clear communication)

I can think of a couple situations, one being if you live in a place where abortion is illegal and you’re talking to someone else/someone who knows someone who wants to get one. Doesn’t matter if you did nothing illegal but now you’ve likely gotten them in hot water. Another is if you’ve loaded a website that hosted something illegal unintentionally, now you have to explain why that’s in your cache/history/whatever (lemmy had a big problem with CSAM being spammed on some instances). Innocent people get put on trial/sent to prison for weak evidence, and your phone is an immense amount of information for the cops to look through and see if they can make anything fit.

You’d be surprised how hard it is to get on in life if you’re surrounded by people like this, you can’t just ignore half the people around you all the time, especially if you’re forced to interact with them.