This is like when I found out about the Budweiser horses

You can get these as thc edibles in some places

Still it is utterly obnoxious when someone seems to act all high and mighty that they didn’t vote for the lesser of two evils.

I’m still looking for the point that anybody did this? Are Kamala voters not allowed to criticize her platform and point out that there was no good option for the working class? What’s obnoxious to me is putting Kamala up on a pedestal next to Al Gore despite the absolutely pitiful losing campaign she ran. Her loss was obvious to anyone honestly paying attention. There was so much more she could have offered to the people if she really wanted to win, but instead her campaign chose to use Trump as a bludgeon against anyone left of center in the American working class.

Are we really more upset at the third party voters that voted their conscience, and resisted the coercive campaign practices, than the million-dollar campaign itself that utterly failed to appeal both to them and to non-voters on its own merits? Are we really eating up this slop right now? Harris was not owed any votes, it was up to her campaign to earn them. This is a time that we need to come together as a people and struggle outside of the electoralist system, but so many of us are too busy pointing fingers at people who are just as powerless as them, for all the reasons this country sucks right now. Really??? Can this energy not be used more productively???

The election is over, let’s move on now and stop idolizing these traitors. This is not a person that deserves to be defended like this. She has made it clear that she doesn’t give a fuck about us, she cannot be moved an inch even to win an election and her donors come before anyone else in the country. We need a system that works for us, and we need to get it through our domes that the ruling class is not going to put that on a fucking ballot.

I used it with W10 for years without issue but it sounds like W11 has presented new challenges. That’s unfortunate.

There’s also open shell if you like pre-W10 interfaces https://github.com/Open-Shell/Open-Shell-Menu

Yes, I am proudly biased against groups that commit genocide before our eyes and deny it, dispossess indigenous peoples of their ancestral homes and turn them into refugees in foreign lands, along with fascist ideologies which call for the establishment and maintenance of an ethnostate and sheepishly justify Nazi collaboration and ethnic cleansing as a means to that end. Stay as mad at that as you like and have the day you deserve.

Your aljazeera source with hamas sourced numbers is the misinfo.

Hamas is not only its armed wing. It is the entire government in Gaza. Its numbers have historically been considered reliable by the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and Human Rights Watch. In relation to the Gaza war, two letters published in The Lancet journal did not find evidence of inflation or fabrication of Palestinian casualty numbers. There is no reason to cast doubt on their estimates than to deny that Israel is committing a genocide.

Andrew Fox is a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society. He served for 16 years in the British Army, leaving the Parachute Regiment with the rank of Major. He completed 3 tours in Afghanistan including one attached to US Army Special Forces, as well as further tours of Bosnia, Northern Ireland and the Middle East.

The Henry Jackson Society is a trans-Atlantic foreign policy and national security think tank, based in the United Kingdom. While describing itself as non- partisan, its outlook has been described variously as right-wing, neoliberal, and neoconservative.

This is your source?? A fucking British soldier that has made a living occupying Ireland and running around shooting at Arabs??? Writing at the behest of a right wing think tank???

The rest of this is racist Zionist slop that I shouldn’t even justify with a response, because even if it was a completely honest portrayal it would not justify genocide, but to start; Palestinians cannot be held responsible for actions that other arab nations took after 1948 (in response to the horrific acts committed during the nakba, but that nonetheless does not justify it) or the antisemitism that was in large part purposefully fomented in those nations by Israel to advance the Zionist mission. The intention of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine has been made clear since Zionism first emerged in the late 19th century. The mass transfer of Jews to historic palestine and the ensuing displacement of Palestinians started before even 1933, which is when the Haavara agreement was signed between Nazis and Zionist collaborators. It has never been about “self defense” and that is a fucking shameful way to justify the violent expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their home land.

You have an agenda and no amount of logic will ever change it.

Back at you.

Get the fuck out of here you disgusting fucking Zionist.

We really are not beating the dead internet allegations with this one

Do I not understand or am I being deliberately obtuse? Get your story straight.

In that case though thanks for proving my point. Allow me to edit my reply.

did I say that gamergate participants were career politicians? Do you think I think they had the ability to pass laws?

Yes, you did, you compared this issue to the civil rights era, and then you went on to compare it to gamergate, as if all things were equal between them. Welcome to the transitive property! Or are you now saying that this situation is not comparable to gamergate? Hey look, I can be condescending too! Know why? Well cause, I don’t think you’re an ally >:(

I was using that example to demonstrate why the comparison was insulting, because, as we both agree, internet critics are in fact not politicians. Taking normal people criticising someone, whose internet presence thoroughly warrants criticism; and comparing that to a fight against the American ruling class, to win human rights for a group of people whose humanity is absolutely not up for critique or questioning; shows you don’t give a fuck about civil rights beyond the era’s ability to serve you in an argument. The fact you’re still doubling down on it is very telling.

I’m not being obtuse, I’m very openly refusing to entertain your argument because it trivializes a serious issue that is deeply important to me. This is the most stunning display of dunning-kreuger I have ever witnessed. Nice alt btw. Pretentious ass bad faith radlib. Ick.

suggesting that any and all criticism towards any woman on the internet simply must be based on her gender

I haven’t said that.

Do you know what the term “suggest” means? Have you witnessed the other people in this thread whose behavior you are trying to explain? Did you not literally follow that up by saying “I don’t think you’re an ally”? An ally with whom? What am I then?

did I say that gamergate participants were career politicians? Do you think I think they had the ability to pass laws?

You made the comparison to the rhetoric about forced bussing in the civil rights era??? I said it was an insulting comparison, then you doubled down, and now here you are agreeing that it’s a bad comparison because you think I made it.

Uh. Sexism is bad, I think.

Somebody should award you a nobel peace prize. That doesn’t explain why people are defending this particular artist so fervently or any significant events that would qualify as a “quick overview of the situation”?

Lol. Lmao even. And I’m the one being “deliberately obtuse”. Holy fuck you’re annoying, your arguments are bad, and the fact you avoid the actual argument; where one might actually prove sexism, rather than make a bunch of paranoid conjecture about people engaging in the age old tradition of gossip; is not a point in your favor. You have not “earned” the right to condescend, nor to decide who is and is not an ally. This isn’t even what I was asking about in the first place and you’re really only proving my point. Go away.

At least god doesn’t have six fingers.

Nope, he only has 4. As intended :)

I pity you.

Uh, they spent the small amount of energy it takes to leave a few comments on the internet because the same painfully unfunny comic strip keeps coming up in their feed and they don’t understand where the popularity comes from? That’s why I’m here at least. Lemmy is still relatively small, I don’t get that many posts to interact with. If it’s so much energy to spend, then I’m fundamentally asking the same question as you. Why are these people spending so much of their energy defending her?

I don’t see why it has to be anything more than that and I really don’t appreciate the condescension, to suggest that I’ve fallen for some rhetorical manipulation that you think you’re somehow immune from. Yes, I was also here on the internet when those things were happening. It’s not that I don’t understand it, it’s that this is not that. There are legitimate reasons to dislike this person and their comics.

Do you really think that being annoying like this; suggesting that any and all criticism towards any woman on the internet simply must be based on her gender; is going to dispel negative attention from actual sexists? Do you really think that you aren’t gonna get a lot of false positives, from people simply expressing their legitimate criticisms on a platform specifically made for the purpose, and push those people away from whatever your message is by presuming to know what they are thinking and aggressively using that to condescend to them and dismiss anything they have to say?

Also yes, it was very obvious even to the least politically engaged person that gamergate was about sexism. Yes, even as it was happening. That’s like the whole reason people took part in it. They knew what they were doing just as well as the people calling them on it and were pretty open about their sexism. They weren’t career politicians trying to pander to a racist base without sparking major backlash, so they could quietly pass laws to prevent integration; they were gamers having their little boys club on the internet, being flagrantly sexist and bad faith. What even is this line of reasoning??

If you like this person as an artist and identify with the comic you can just say that and engage normally, if you don’t then why would you go out of your way to defend them and suggest that their gender has anything to do with it? You don’t have to keep explaining the same point, I know what you’re saying and I disagree.

Is it? I’ve never seen this before and seen lots of this artist’s comics posted here. It does seem it’s just as much one side as it is the other though.

Also I understand the concept of fear mongering veiled bigotry. That doesn’t even remotely appear to be what is happening here and, not to be overly pearl clutch-y, but as somebody with intimate knowledge of this history I honestly find the comparison to the civil rights era insulting. People expressing their dislike of an artist with questionable behavior on the internet is not the same thing as politicians in the real world using fear tactics as a fig leaf for their racist goals of preventing black people from fully integrating into american society.

I understand you mean well but this doesn’t really answer for me why the defensiveness is so over the top.

You seem to enjoy being annoying for the sake of being annoying, but that doesn’t mean anyone else does. Seems like a pretty lonely hobby actually.

I’ve only seen this artist reposted on lemmy and never knew the first thing about her other than her comics being pretty bland and art unimpressive despite being frequently posted, what is going on with all these people white knighting for her?? If you like her, cool. If you don’t like her, also cool?? What is the problem here??

The closest thing to “harassing” I’ve witnessed is of those with fairly reasonable criticism of the comic presented to us, accusing them of harassing an artist that isn’t even on this platform.

Can you give me a quick overview of the situation?

You sure bailed from your entire argument pretty darn quickly to now argue “there’s no way to rigidly define it.” There is. It’s “wet.” It behaves in the way wet things do. There’s no reason to say otherwise than to be contrarian. The only way to argue otherwise is to create a strict definition of wetness, as you just have, which ultimately fails when put up against reality and a more human use of language.

I’d say wet and dry are relative terms here but ultimately, yes, you and I are in agreement that water is wet.

Actually fire is the byproduct of a chemical reaction. The material being combusted is the one doing the burning. Fire (rather, extreme heat) can cause combustion in other materials, given an oxygen rich environment, but the fire is not itself doing the combustion or burning.

Wetness is not a chemical reaction, so it’s kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

It’s not “less than meaningful” if you understand wet as a relative term. There can be a normal level of wetness where if it is exceeded we then call that thing wet, and if it’s under that threshold we call it dry relative to the norm.

If you somehow came from a perfectly dry environment, yeah, you would probably consider our world pretty wet. You would have a pretty hard time describing your experience to others if you couldn’t use the word wet to do so. The word doesn’t lose meaning just because you go all reductio ad adsurdum with it.