Look, not to be “that guy” but the importance of using someone’s preferred pronouns doesn’t fly out the window when you don’t like them. That just makes you hypocritical.
Bash them for being a piece of shit all you like, but the moment you’re choosing to misgender them intentionally you’re signaling that pronoun choice only matters when you like the person being referred to.
Its amusing you bring up “protections”, meanwhile you’ve got mods who circumvent the word of their admins. Maybe if you don’t want your instance dragged through the mud, you should clean up your leadership?
I will say, the admin I dealt with there was reasonable. They at least took the time to understand what I was saying, while the rest of the instance intentionally misread my comment as pedophilic. Hell, one user (out of at least twenty) even called out the fact that the vast majority were intentionally misreading the comment. And when that admin decided “okay, look, just apologize for the misunderstanding and drop it” and I did?… the mod who originally banned me from one community “stepped in for admins” and banned me from the entire instance.
That’s some great protections.
Oh, no argument here at all. I’m simply saying that a perfectly livable micro home could be the answer for those who would bitch about “I’m paying for my home and theirs is nicer” or similar.
Make a home that is adequate, but most would want to improve their lives and move out of.
Of course I’m more a supporter of UBI, which would likely solve this issue among many others if properly implemented. But that’s a different topic completely.
There are major problems with income based limits. In theory they work, but they often break down over time locking people into the poverty they are trying to escape. It creates a grey area where they lose more than they gain by improving their income. Sometimes as much as an hour of extra work can lose them their benefits.
I mean, there’s no reason we can’t go the way of Japanese micro home in construction. Everything you need packed into an efficient little area you can still call home.
Hell… if I wasn’t married with kids and pets, I’d almost prefer that.
Tell me you don’t understand what “defund the police” was actually about without telling me…
It’s crucial to acknowledge that there have been documented cases where candidates have entered races specifically to confuse voters or draw votes away from a particular party. Ignoring these tactics is just as dangerous to democracy as discounting the role of third parties.
While I understand your commitment to voting for the candidate that aligns with your beliefs, it’s essential to consider how these strategies can impact the electoral process as a whole. Recognizing these issues doesn’t undermine the value of third-party candidates; rather, it highlights the complexities and challenges within our political system.
I appreciate your perspective, but I’m trying to understand how your response relates to the specific topic I raised. It seems like you sidestepped the issue I mentioned regarding third-party candidates and their potential impact on elections.
I also want to clarify that I’m not being uncivil; I’m simply expressing my concerns about the broader implications of voting choices. It’s important to consider how those choices might affect the country as a whole.
Are you suggesting that the viewpoint about the intentional confusion created by some candidates isn’t worthy of respect? I’m a bit confused, and I’d appreciate your help in clearing this up.
@KairuByte
@lemmy.dbzer0.com