This seems a shallow take to me, couldn’t you just as well go:

In the US people adress eachother by (Mr/Mrs) family name, putting the family above individuality.

Which ofc is less prominent in the US than in more communal cultures like those in Japan or China.

Then you’re lacking in imagination.

Similar data have outed people’s pregnancies, relationships and locations, which has been used to let people be stalked and even murdered.

Car data can be sold and amalgamated to create a very precise profile of you, available to be purchased by anyone. Anyone with about $100 can purchase access to your daily/weekly schedule, including physical locations, and can easily steal your identity, if not rob or murder you.

Also, foreign propaganda can similarly profile you and hyper target influence campaigns.

That’s not actually how those things go together… how…? Ah, lemmy.ml, explains it

And I’m showing you, with sources, that you are wrong on both your points.

It can be reliably and reproducibly measured that diversity is more profitable. It’s as “always” as tylenol helps against headaches, trains for travel, google for searches, gravity for keeping you on the ground. Yes, there technically are times these don’t work, but it works more often than not, and typically there’s other factors when it doesn’t.

And similarly, yes you might not always pick the best candidate, but applying robustly provable best practices will lead you to doing it more often.

Do you go through anything else in life in this manner? That if you can’t do it perfectly, you’d rather not try? I’d wager not, as trying gets you closer to your goals, even when not meeting them immediately.

It seems evident you’re not giving an informed opinion.

The Trump administration has deemed presentations of employed women and poc as part of DEI.

I find it hard to see that describing your employee diversity is discriminatory. And the law is quite settled on this not being discriminatory. Changes are being forced by executive order, many of which have been illegal under the current administration.

Diversity has repeatedly been shown to be more profitable than homogeneity, in both academic and gray literature. Besides being good for societal cohesion, fairness, stability, happiness, and moral virtue.

The best candidate is indeed best, but there are too narrow and outdated ideas on how to identify the best candidate, and humans have a bias to choose/hire for safety and similarity over actually relevant criteria, which is why we have the problem in the first place.

Please provide proof that this is in use at the PSF.

Quotas for minorities are a very outdated practice and were used to break the most entrenched norms (women in C-suites).

More modern practices include preferring diversity between equally qualified candidates, ad retargeting and messaging efforts, and inclusive norms at workplaces.

Also, diversity is profitable, it increases both innovativeness and productivity. It seems uniquely stupid to kneecap the economy to benefit your cronies. Then again, maybe that’s the whole point of the GOPedo platform: rob the commons.

deleted by creator

Try pipepipe, haven’t had it blocked ever for the couple years I’ve used it

I’m trying to read your argument generously, and it comes off as: a minority has to work with the enemy to have a chance at achieving some of its goals.

Please correct me, as that doesn’t seem right?

The GOPedo with Trump are still in the popular minority of votes, they haven’t been neither popular majority nor willing to compromise for 50 years.

White Christians aren’t a US minority group, or do you mean that the GOPedo has negotiated with them for the current policies? (With minorities I refer to political minority powers, not necessarily demographics)

Or is it the plurality of voters that should accept working with Trump over Biden to get some of their policy? It would seem that Biden would be the compromise candidate, as Trump doesn’t seem to be pursuing any voter driven policy (health care, jobs, lower inflation, lower cost of living, legalising drugs, etc.), besides perhaps those of further US minorities (Heritage foundation, oligarchs, Saudi Arabia, Russia).

Would you please clarify what you’re arguing for with your picked examples?

Good thing he got replaced, the next one would never do that right?

Oh, he did as well? Well, at least you voted him out when you found out.

Wait, you elected him back? Despite him having done so before just last time, and openly promising to do so again? And the alternative not having done so, nor promising to?

How much could you really care if you’re repeatedly and knowingly going against it?

I’m more interested in knowing if this leads to any difference in treatment and reception in the correctional facility. I don’t care if they think they’re making some kind of point going out in drag, it’s functionally indistinguishable from being trans and an excellent point in favor of the law treating people equally, as well as gender being a construct.

I’m guessing being disingenuous is rather going to bite them in corrections, and hope she’ll find a constructive way to approach themselves and society in corrections.

The Divine Dungeon series scratched much of the same itch for me!

deleted by creator

Thank you for the clarification.

I’d say the semantics arguments come from countering religions’ manipulative perversion of language.

Many religions use tricky language to confuse, conflate and abuse. One such example is that Christian apologists have conflated atheist with heretic for the better part of two millennia. Which is of course absurd, as most Christians are atheist towards Hindu gods, and are thus definitionally more atheist than Hindus.

Yet atheist/heretic/apostate remains as a dirty label, and includes judgement of character, and in many parts of the world persecution or lesser worth.

Reclaiming the word serves in part to actually give it usefulness beyond a boogeyman, to allow for discussions on fundamentals of belief, epistemology, and the contrast of belief vs reasons vs knowableness.

It also helps bridge some of the damage religion has done. When religious people get some nuance to the boogeyman term, they typically are more open to seeing the human cost of stereotyping and shunning people because of that label.

Other perverted terms common to religious trauma are gnosticism (ofc), but also love, grief, acceptance, morality and righteousness.

Things that us having to break free from religion all had to relearn the hard way, and typically while hiding from our still religious close ones.

Thank you for your generous answer.

Your perspective on what your religion views as up for question is very interesting, although it gives rise to many follow up questions (how does proclamation work when obviously contradicted by lower clergy? Who gets to question which parts of the dogma? If everything is up for question, what is the commonality of the religion?) I’m afraid we’ll have to leave for another time if we’re to get anywhere on the primary topic.

You cite Collins:

“If someone converts you, they persuade you to change your religious or political beliefs. You can also say that someone converts to a different religion.”

I’ll give you that it’s the weakest of the lot, but I read “converts to a different religion” as having you leave the first to then adhere to another.

As we previously established atheism isn’t a religion I find it hard to see that you could have been converted.

If we look at the usage for beliefs, Collins isn’t very clear if the definition includes “into another belief”, luckily the other three are and include the new belief in their descriptions.

So, I seem to find that the lexical definition for conversion does indeed include another positive end belief, in contrast to what you claimed the dictionary people were about. I was curious if there were subtle differences in world view behind this, but currently I understand this more as a difference in how we understand definitions rather than how we view questioning.

According to the first page of my search the Cambridge, Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, Collins dictionaries all imply conversion needs also adopting a new belief/opinion/religion.

I feel it’s a commonly propagated lie within certain religions that atheism is a belief, which of course it’s not (it’s the lack of belief, like most people have about fairies, flat Earth or the Mayan end of the world). I don’t know if your mention of this statement is that you agree or not, but if you do - how do you arrive at the position that questioning is being the same as (lexical) conversion?

I get that a large part of Abrahamitic religions in particular is to obey and not question, as well as theism being necessary to be accepted in the religion (and not a heretic); is it that the questioning positions you outside of the religion and thus deconverts? Is that how you arrive at the “change”?

I apologise for the clumsy phrasing, but if we’re reading the same text and coming to different conclusions, I must assume we’re using words differently and would need to backtrack to find our last point of common understanding.

At 19 years it’s high time to be curious about nsfw stuff. For most people it starts way earlier than that (from 7 typically), but it takes a while to figure out what it means and what it’s safe to do about, even more so in a high-strung environment (which religious people often create).

Consuming porn is entirely normal, and an avenue of exploring sexuality. It’s not a very realistic depiction: it’s based in reality but about as accurate as getting career guidance from movies. That still leaves plenty to learn about what goes where, explore fantasy, different expressions of pleasure/lust/sexuality, besides the option of choosing material that is more real and/or educational.

If the material isn’t appealing to you, feel free to change what you consume. Some porn and some expression might not be for you at this time; some will be from shame or ideas from your upbringing, some will just be from you and your sexuality. Try other topics, other creators, other styles, etc. Maybe it’s the amount of penis, or botox, or the impersonality, or the body type, or the lighting, or anything really.

Consider trying different media formats, like video clips, movies, images, but also literature (stories, captions, books), anime/manga, erogames, chat, audio recordings (asmr, audiobooks, dramatisations, recordings), etc. I highly recommend using your own mind as well, daydreaming and/or even more actively exploring fantasy.

Of course also explore your body and responses. It’s also a lovely thing to do together with people, and much easier if you can feel relaxed and safe enough with eachother to just explore/try stuff. Use barriers, learn about safer practices, and take care of yourself and eachother as you adventure together.

That is precisely the point, well spotted.

Your description was clear, our experiences seem to differ.

In case you’re worried we have different frames of reference: The way you’re trying to implicate Islam in denigrating terms is not respectful. In analogous phrasing, the Christian denominations are based around glorifying human sacrifice.

My experience is the opposite, it’s always Christians bringing it up, often by judging others’ actions out loud.

Never had any of the other Abrahamitic denominations try to convert me, although I was approached by a Hare Krishna recruiter once.