That’s one of the reasons I stopped using YouTube. I don’t want to see people’s stupid face, it adds nothing and it detracts from the video.

This statement have the following fallacies:

Straw man.

Appeal to emotion.

Ad hominem.

Cherry picking.

Not true Scotsman.

Hasty generalization.

Begging the question.

False dilemma.

I don’t think Lemmy accepts pump-dump or nazi cryptos.

More likely they would accept some of the most famous and established ones. Like them more or like them less, but I don’t see reason to ban them. It’s not like paypal or any bank are angels.

Too vague of a description. I would need a more detailed explanation on what happened to define someone as evil.

As some people may perceive things certain way and other people may perceive them other way.

Even when trauma is implied, I have seem people create their own trauma and blame it on others.

So, there’s that. I would need more information before calling anyone evil or good.

If given all info I could conclude that the person purposely or by negligence of a responsibility caused harm to other person then yes, they would be evil.

Henry Cavill, seems like a nice guy, and I think we would have a lot of common interests to talk about.

Reaching means addressing their issues. Addressing one person issues will probably conflict with other person issues. Wich mean that a choose have to be made on to who represent.

Some people are easier to address than other. Some people are more exigent to their representatives than others. Making it not wort it trying to address them.

It’s important to mention that just by “mentioning” people in your campaign those people are not going to vote you. You need to do specific politics that solve the problems they may have. Which is not easy and most of the times it opposes what other people want you to do.

I mean, United Kingdom (for instance) it’s not an absolute monarchy anymore, isn’t it?

It doesn’t really makes much sense.

The amount of power is the same. They don’t get more power by voting a pope every 5 years rather than every 30 years. They still vote for the pope, the person in that position is always there because it was voted by the Cardinals.

If something it would be the opposite. Selecting a person for a longer period would give you more power as your decision is more time in place unable to be challenged.

China will be the best country in the world the same day fusion reactors will be available. Always in ten years. No matter when you read this.

What phone os do you have?

For me android automatically blocks 90% of spam calls nowadays. I can see them in the phone history, but my phone don’t ring for them.

Some people like to travel in Minecraft. There’s something in just picking a direction and moving there for days, exploring. In Minecraft you would never reach the end. In Luanti you’ll hit the end of the world in a few hours.

Also for massive multiplayer purposes. Servers with hundreds of people are impossible in luanti’s size.

And it’s not just me. You go to Luanti’s forum and one of the biggest threads is one asking for infinite worlds, players want it.

They used to say the the world size was embedded deep into the code and that a massive rewrite would be needed for that and that it was not worth it. But someone already made a fork that has this feature and didn’t change that much so… And no, the fork is not a solution due to Luanti “modular” approach that fork is incompatible with any Luanti game so there’s no game really just the base “engine”.

I don’t have high hopes of devs ever addressing that, so I stopped following the project. I hope be proven wrong, but something tells me that it’s a change that will never me made.

I don’t know about Luanti. The world size limitation is an issue that’s hard to address, and there’s some ‘denial’ going up within their devs about it. Stating that the current world size is more than enough, ignoring the great amount of people asking for bigger worlds.

“I hope you collapse” is my new go to insult.

Bro didn’t live during sms era.

I’m not native English. It’s imperfect English or writing in other language that not many would fully understand.

I agree. Straight up fascist out. Nobody need a fascist. But I do miss liberals (in the european sense) or conservatives /republicans (from US perspective).

It gives little more variety to a place.

For instance it would be nice to have people defending tariffs and getting some discussion on those, see different points of view and such. I like to be intellectually challenged, and it’s hard sometimes when I agree with most people here in most topics and in the ones I don’t agree people tends to be very hostile. I think that when most people think the same way that leads to some feral behavior to those who write any different opinion.

I don’t mean fascist or nazis, obviously ban those. But, you know, the real ones. Not the “everyone who is slightly more right wing than myself is a nazi”. I’m not right wing but I do enjoy the company of normal right wingers. And here sometimes it gets a little boring knowing that for most things everyone has the same opinion on most issues.

While nice to have and good for people who need it. I won’t think it would have an impact of very high statistical relevance in userbase growth.

As people with visual disabilities (the most common disability that needs adaptations for a social media service) is not a massive demographic group.

Userbase being more friendly towards different ideologies.

People don’t want to admit it. But this is a very toxic place for people who are not of a very specific ideology.

And when confronted about it the usual response is “I don’t want people thinking like that here” which is a rephrase of “I just want people like me here”. Which is ok, but inconsistent with a wish for growth as the idea of people turning your ideology because you think you are so convincing it’s a fantasy.

It’s an experiment for the Duncan Princicle!