Nowhere was I trying to say that Britain didn’t mistreat its colonies. Not sure where that came from.

I mean they’re right that the US was founded by a bunch of religious extremists and rich fuckers who didn’t want to pay taxes. For which we do in fact see the ramifications still to this day.

But to draw the conclusion that somehow it’s a good thing and we need more of it in public life is pretty twisted.

I think the original commenter’s point is that calling grown women “girls” is a commonly used tactic to infantilize women and make the situation seem not as serious as it’s supposed to be.

Take for example the headline that we’re talking about here: “girl” vs “woman” is the difference in thinking that this is some 16 year old who made dumb decisions and someone who probably understands the consequences of what they’re doing and takes proper precautions to prevent it.

This is not to say that I personally believe that one abortion is more justified than the other (because I don’t), but just want to point out the semantic difference here.

Have you tried reader mode? In both firefox and chrome (i think, I haven’t checked other browsers) there’s a button usually in the address bar that you can click and it’ll format the article into a readable page instead of a bunch of ad-riddled garbage. It works pretty well generally.

Yeah. You’re absolutely correct in that the two parties aren’t remotely equal. I guess my comment stems from the frustration I feel seeing democrats constantly trying to “take the upper road” while conservatives block anything the democrats do on principle. They’ll take a thousand concessions to get bills passed and even when the democrats are in power, somehow still don’t manage to enact very meaningful change.

So when I see the democrats slip up sometimes it feels like they undo whatever little progress they managed to make with all the conservative bad faith actors.

Democrats 🤝 Republicans

Fucking the poor. The only point they have in common.

Am i mistaken in believing that cloud computing naturally lends itself to only having a couple of big players in the space? The whole point of the technology is to have someone else do the hosting for you, and the people doing the hosting win out by economies of scale.

This would be a different conversation if they found evidence in the software that it was throttling smaller competitors, but without any more information this seems like a lot of nothing?

Okay that makes more sense. I do think that “online dating is awful” is a very different statement from “well it used to be good but now it sucks” and the two phrases come with very different qualifications and conclusions.

The former phrase is a pretty blanket judgement on this aspect of society in relation to the whole. But the latter statement has more to do with the enshittification of the internet and the capitalist systems woven inbetween. The latter statement is a historical comparison while the former is a value judgment of society.

As for your opinion itself, I don’t have any strong feelings one way or another. The nature of the internet has paradoxically connected more people than ever before while simultaneously isolating us more than ever before. I personally don’t think that online dating really differs from that mold. I think that this is one small part of a larger problem where capitalism has commodified almost every aspect of humanity, which is accelerated by the internet.

That’s not what the original comment said if you read it at all. The commenter was making the point that okcupid was pretty good before it was enshittified. There was no direct judgement about whether the world is better with or without OLD. And the subtextual judgment seems to be positive or at least neutral, so I’m not sure what you actually have a problem with.

I found this mostly to be a satiric nothingburger that doesn’t make any meaningful observations at all.

Based on the title I expected it to go a little bit deeper into how “AI” technology will destroy society if it doesn’t get regulated, but instead it was just a couple of short quips about how some of the big tech companies nowadays have changed what life looks like nowadays.

I felt like I was reading a boomer say “get off my lawn! Kids these days…” without any additional nuance or context.

Maybe you could prod them by asking them questions designed to highlight their unconscious biases? Assuming that they’re not a malicious actor of course and actually genuinely trying to learn and expand their worldview.

I do think it’s important to determine whether the person you’re arguing with actually cares to grow and learn or if they’re just trying to start fights with people and “win” arguments with comments that take a lot of nuance to address. In the cases where they don’t care, don’t waste your breath on arguing with someone who’s sole purpose is to make you angry. They don’t care about your nuanced answer.

I forget how the original phrase goes, but someone once said that these people use language as a toy to play with, while the reasonable person uses it to justify their actions.

While I don’t disagree with anything you said, I’m not sure how this answers the OP’s question. At least without a little bit more elaboration on what assumptions you’re making and why you’re bringing up feminism specifically in this case.

Just to take a stab here though, I think you bring up feminism because more often than not men will discredit women because “women get emotional”. And since the men in this situation aren’t crying from whatever casually horrendous shit is being said in the name of “debate”, that to them, they think they are just and unbiased and have a more unbiased opiniom than women. Which ignores how men will often react angrily to a woman who buts into their conversation and not even realize that anger is an emotion too.

Well excuse me for trying to write an entertaining explanation while the earth is burning down from unchecked capitalist greed.

I guess people just aren’t allowed to have fun anymore :/

Here’s your award for being a boring and unhelpful person 🥇

When people are starting to starve and there are no more monkeys that can entertain the masses, the spirit of rebellion starts to rise from the ashes.

So the established powers that be have two options: violently suppress the masses. Or acquiesce some level of control, power, or ultimately capital.

The powers that be would rather die than give up their money. So fascism it is!

Because we’ve hit the point of capitalism where the system is imploding on itself, and so those in power turn to fascism in order to protect their capital.