What do you think Lemmy is most biased about? Which opinions do you think differ most from the general internet?
(Excluding US politics, due to community rules)
Commonly mentioned biases:
| Subject | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Pro-Privacy | 2 |
| Left-Wing | 9 |
| Anti-Capitalism | 5 |
| American | 5 |
| Older | 2 |
| Pro-Linux | 3 |
| Tech people | 5 |
| Anti-Ai | 4 |
| Pro-LBTQ+ | 3 |
| Anti religion | 3 |
| Pro-Communism | 3 |
Bonus: Gaming Biases
| Subject | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Nintendo hate | 3 |
| Pro-SteamDeck | 1 |
| Anti-GOG | 1 |
| PC over console | 1 |
+1 for:
Left-Wing
Anti-AI
Tech People
Anti Capitalism
Coming from someone left wing, messing with tech since I was a kid, terrified of late stage capitalism, and who hates Sam Altman’s lying, con artist guts even more than I hate Musk.
But… jeez. I’m like a far right tech bro on Lemmy.
From what I’ve seen Lemmy is pro-EU, pro-privacy, pro-Linux, very left-leaning, anti-capitalism, and strongly anti-AI.
American bias, millennial bias, left wing bias
I’ve got 2 out of 3!
Already mentioned was the pro Linux and everything else sucks. Also, the Nintendo hate.
What I haven’t seen is the high acceptance/love of furry content. I didn’t know people could draw animals that hot. Not that it awakened anything in me.
deleted by creator
You made me realise all the shit I’ve filtered. Def a furry bias and a anime girl bias here lol
For as politically Left as Lemmy tends to run there still seems to be a high level of mysoginy.
I think that comes with the techy side of lemmy. IT is still very much a male-dominated field and while it’s better now than it was maybe 10 years ago, the mentality lingers and women in tech still run into a lot of misogyny. It makes sense that more tech minded users who tend to work in or have a big interest in IT have that mentality.
Even posting this, I’m a bit hesitant. To be clear, Lemmy is significantly less awful in terms of a lot of things, but I agree that I have seen some loud voices when it comes to misogyny.
I think that comes with the techy side of lemmy
That’s kinda what I’ve always figured.
Even posting this, I’m a bit hesitant.
Yeah, honestly surprised I haven’t been hounded for even suggesting it.
Techy bias and recruiting from Redditors in the first place
Yes, but there mainly seems to be a large gender discrepancy.
Most folks here seem to lean to a moderate left also, Conservatives are apparently grouped in with Republicans an MAGA.
While it’s nice to see the community grow there really isn’t any diversity, for lack of a better word, in the political discussions made here.
Good
deleted by creator
Two things that I haven’t seen yet.
-
Much higher general tech and math/stats literacy than other spaces on the internet
-
An overwhelming hatred for Nintendo when most of the rest of the internet swallows their boot in order to play their new games because let’s face it, they make some of the most well-polished 3D platformers.
-
I’ll go first.
- I think there is a strong pro-Linux bias. It wouldn’t surprise me if 40+% use it on here.
- People from the US seem over-represented, but less so compared to Reddit
- There is a far stronger anti-capitalist sentiment on here than other social media
- The average age seems to be much higher. I joined when I was 16 and feel quite young unlike on other social media.
I’ll add:
- AI bad
- Piracy ok
- Political posts are more frequent (Bias towards political expression)
- More tech enthusiasts
“AI bad” overrides “Piracy ok”, though. I’ve seen threads in the main piracy community where the general consensus seemed to be that copyright should be used as a weapon against AI.
Just a guess. Because piracy advocacy isn’t about not paying, it’s about not supporting megacorporations and anti-artistic business models. It’s a form of protest, I suspect most advocates would buy media legally when it doesn’t feel enshittified.
They would probably also support companies that used AI but did not fire workers as a result.
Because piracy advocacy here on the Fediverse is about that, yeah. You’re saying the same thing I am, that the Fediverse’s pro-piracy bias is “overridden” by its anti-AI bias.
It’s the same thing. It’s about protesting against big companies that hurt workers and artists.
Yes, exactly what I’m saying. People on the Fediverse hate AI more than they support piracy, because when there’s a situation that involves both enabling piracy and helping AI they will side with the anti-piracy side in order to hurt the AI side. The Fediverse has more of an anti-AI bias than it has a pro-piracy bias.
Hmm I still think we’re saying different things. Enabling piracy for consumers and rejecting it for big business come from the same beliefs. It’s not about piracy itself or hating AI more than liking piracy. It’s not about piracy at all but who is allowed to use it. It’s about content being controlled by the public, and not corporations. I think.
Copyright good unless it’s major companies/brands whatever (basically if not indie = bad)
- Piracy ok
I’m not sure how true that is for the largest instance (lemmy.world) but apart from that it seems quite on point
I think you’re right on all these points, though it depends a bit on what part of the Fediverse you’re exposed to.
On the point of anti-capitalism, I agree, but (again, depending on the part of the Fediverse) there’s also an incredibly high amount of open-minded people here, compared to other more mainstream social media (like Reddit). I speak much from my perspective of being from lemmy.zip, which I’m impressed by the healthiness of the community since I joined. But there are also less “healthy” instances like lemmy.ml which is considered by many to be infested with tankies (anti-capitalism?).
And yes, the average age seems to be around mid-30s to me, based solely on how people speak and what they reminisce about.
I think what muddles the water on the “Leftwing” character of Lemmy is that there are two kinds here: those whose personal Principles (mainly around the importance reducing the suffering and increasing the happiness of others, rather than just themselves) which lead them to support leftwing policies and those support Political forces or ideologies which are deemed Leftwing, and hence see themselves as Leftwing.
IMHO it’s last group that explains in Lemmy things like authoritarian leftwingers (i.e. tankies) and people who think they’re leftwingers because they tribalistically support certain mainstream political parties who claim to be Left but are at best moral liberal and even that second to their very rightwing broader stand on general Equality and quality of life for the many (such as the US Democrats, UK Labour, German SPD and so on).
My impression is that Lemmy has a much higher proportion of Principled Left-wingers than the wider society.
This is probably why if you’re not in an instance that blocks the tankie instances, in between the tankies, the principled types and the mainstream “leftwing” party tribalists it almost feels like there are 3 kinds of “Left” in Lemmy.
- The average age seems to be much higher. I joined when I was 16 and feel quite young unlike on other social media.
Enjoy. Less echo bubbles. This goes in both directions, but mainly I value that younger people are able to be part of “mature conversations”. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to underestimate your worldview or anything. It’s just that I’m remembering when I was around your age, the Internet was in a raw form, and it felt much like this. I was amazed to be able to talk with other adults and learn about their tastes on say books or movies when I joined some theme specific chat channel (via protocol IRC). At some point this changed drastically (e.g. Facebook connecting people from real life/ schools)… and I think nowadays TikTok, Insta, and for the most part, even YouTube are just centered around being young, pretty… very much like mainstream TV.
Yeah, I enjoyed that about reddit at that ave too. As an isolated teen it’s all I had
I agree that the average age is higher. You’re the only other confirmed teenager that I have encountered while on Lemmy. I joined Lemmy when I was 17 during the Reddit emmigration.
16 atm.
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
World == USA
Incredible US bias here to the point where many discussions completely ignore the existence of the rest of the world.
Lemmy is actually worse than reddit here. The only network that at least tries to be cosmopolitan is Mastodon and that’s why it just feels so much healthier there.
mastodon is the least usable fediverse app, idk how yall get an interesting feed on there, still no quote posts is wild
I mentioned how HDDs could be broken down fpr secure data erasure and then trashed (read recycled).
Lemmy user immediately read and assumed “landfill”.
Well…There are countries in the world that don’t have massive landfills (we in Germany replaced those with coal mine pits :p)Yeah. I’ve had several discussions talking about what happens in other countries and someone starts complaining about how it is typical American behavior.
Most of Lemmy is anti-AI, especially generative AI.
Which seems uninformed and ridiculous as Deep Learning for classification and regression problems is an absolute valid tool that cannot be replaced anymore in many domains. I don’t care about LLM bullshit, but being “against Deep Learning in general” is stupid.
Nobody* is talking about machine learning when they say “AI” these days. They mean LLMs and generative AI and especially the way it is being forced into everything and destroying the environment to do so.
* not literally; there is certainly at least one person out there who objects to machine learning, deep learning, or whatever you want to call it. However this is not the general sentiment.
I think the biggest issues Lemmy has with it, which are valid, boil down to environmental impact, AI being used to replace working class people instead of making their lives better, and the way it’s being used to erase art as a part of human culture. If those three things weren’t an issue I’d be less wary of AI.
It’s hard for me to feel that the environmental impact is the big reason, there are MUCH bigger fish to fry when it comes to the environment.
Bitcoin ~65 Mt CO₂/year LLMs <10 Mt CO₂/year (est.) Holiday Flights ~900 Mt CO₂/year
If the people crying about AI being bad for the environment isn’t also very upset about people taking flights to go on holiday or crypto, then that’s not really what they’re upset about.
Look, to be honest I wish LLMs were never invented, because I think it will just strip more money away from the poor and feed the rich, but yea, cat is out of the bag. and AI is VERY useful, we can’t deny that.
This isn’t even taking into consideration eating red meat which has a far great impact than any AI query ever will, but most anti-AI peeps aren’t ready for that conversation.
If I stop eating beef am I morally allowed to use AI? /s
Exactly, If caring about the environment is why you hate AI, but you still eat red meat and take flights on holiday you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Biases are indeed usually uninformed and ridiculous.
Anti ai nowadays almost exclusively means the over insertion of llms into ordinary life and/or the over trust of a blackbox computer program. People aren’t throwing hands because of alphafold as much as they are a prime minister using a language model to make policy decisions
Oh are those the ones being shoved into all our orifices?
If you get all your info from Lemmy you’d probably think that AI is a worthless hype bubble that can’t do anything right and will collapse and go away in a few years.
At this point I’d believe AGI already exists and “AI Slop” is just a psy-opp.
Like how do people reconcile recognizing how AI is negatively effecting society but denying that it could get exponentially more harmful?
AI-agents (not AGI) will change cyberwarfare like nuclear weapons changed convetional warfare.
Meanwhile true AGI almost certainly presents an existential threat to humanity. If for no other reason than our own laziness.
Are people anti non-generative AI? Or is broader AI just getting dragged in to the justified anti genAI sentiment?
I think it’s both. Some people dislike all AI because of generative AI like LLM’s, but many people seem to care about making the distinction between generative AI and traditional ML.
I suspect a lot of the former group is don’t that out of ignorance or forgetfulness - I do it all the time, because I often assume people are talking about GenAI. Which is probably a reasonable assumption about 90% of the time these days, but it is better to be clear about it.
Also, a friend who has a background in AI draws a distinction between ML and non-generative AI: ML is basically tools for overpowered statistical analysis and pattern finding, AI is attempts to partially recreate aspects of intelligence, and can include evolutionary algorithms and stuff. Still not sure I see the distinction (and there is overlap), but they’re way more informed than me…
Are people anti non-generative AI? Or is broader AI just getting dragged in to the justified anti genAI sentiment?
I formed this question to myself and was about to post it, but then I remembered Lemmy also hates self-driving cars which are likely Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) or Recurrent Nerual Networks (RNN) which are not part of Generative AI at all.
I think the hatred there is completely disconnected from the fact that it’s AI.
Both of them have in common that the technology is being forced upon us at the cost of lives, livelihoods, and the environment upon which we all rely to survive.
I’m not sure I follow your logic. Those reasons you give are still hatred of AI because of those results (job loss, etc). How is that not hatred of AI?
I agree with Hawke, I think people are against the use of technology in such a way that it exploits workers and customers, not fundamentally against the technology itself.
Basically like the Luddites - they smashed weaving looms, not because the technology was fundamentally bad, but because it was being used by capitalists to worsen working conditions and destroy livelihoods.
I agree with Hawke, I think people are against the use of technology in such a way that it exploits workers and customers, not fundamentally against the technology itself.
I agree with that statement too. Where Hawke and I are disagreeing is I believe Self Driving cars can be used to exploit workers and customers. We already have Waymo robot taxi cabs that are displacing human drivers.
That’s not how I ready their statement… I think Hawke is saying that AI itself is not inherently bad, just that it’s being used for bad things. The bad things they identified are different from yours, but I think you’re basically saying the same thing over-all?
The self-driving cars are not hatred of AI. Nobody* cares that they use machine-learning to enable the cars to drive themselves.
It’s not hatred of AI there.
It’s not hatred of AI there.
I still disagree, but let me create another hypothetical example that may highlight where we might disagreement further:
What if Deep Learning (not Gen AI) was used in missile guidance systems specifically to aim toward “people shaped targets”? Would the hate be for AI or just for missiles? If missiles is your answer, where is the distinction in your mind between that and the self-driving cars example?
GenAI being used in missile guidance makes zero sense - the technology is not applicable there, because you need precision and reliability. Normal AI, sure.
There is no relevant distinction.
I hate missiles for the damage they do regardless of the technology used to point them at the target.
I hate cars for the damage they do regardless of the technology used to point them at the target.
There’s a difference of intent (missiles get aimed at people while self driving cars hopefully get aimed away from people).
There’s a difference of failure modes (when a self-driving car fails it will often hit a person while a failing missile will miss a person).
But theres no reason to hate machine-learning for that, any more there is a reason to hate gyroscopes or lidar or other tools which are also used in guidance systems.
If someone had decided that a simple accelerometer were “good enough” to unleash self-driving cars on the general public without consideration for the damage caused, people would be upset and rightly so, but not because of the specific technology itself.
Edit: changed AI to “machine-learning”
Yes, a lot more compared to other social media. Especially LLM’s and other generative AI ran by big corporations. There are some AI communities on here, but they’re all mostly focused on hosting/running it yourself.
Too much negative experience with reddit using AI to moderate
Isn’t the dbzero Lemmy instance pro AI?
All capitalism is bad, and any attempt to rein it in is failure before any attempts.
Don’t pay attention to the trolls from .ml and hexbear.
I’ve seen people advocate for communism here and asked them to name an example of a communist government of a major country that hasn’t devolved quickly into a dictatorship, and let me tell you, the hysteria and rage could power a small city. I’m fairly progressive, I like to think, but it seems like a lot of lemmings have gone so far down the anti-capitalist rabbit hole they’ve literally come out the other side in China and are wearing Mao stickers.
an example of a communist government of a major country that hasn’t devolved quickly into a dictatorship
I’m not feeling rage or hysteria, but I find a number of issues with this “test” that could easily cause frustration with anyone who has major criticisms of capitalism. My response is long not because of some irrational anger, but because things are complex and nuanced.
You consider yourself to be “fairly progressive”? I’m going to give you an analogy. It’s not great, but it hits on a few major issues relevant to your “test”. Imagine a MAGA fan asked you in 2026 to “name a thriving woke government agency” or “a government agency that still advocates for DEI” to make a point about your ideals. How does that sound to you?
First, you’d like argue that the term “woke” and “DEI” means different things to different people. That the term has been transformed into some deranged negatively charged approximation used as almost a slur colloquially. The same is true for “communist/ism” and “socialist/ism”. The current US “powers that be” have taken ownership of terms originally used by progressives. Woke was an “eyes open” state of awareness of the systemic racism baked into society. Now it is often considered “naively believing that forced equality makes things better”. DEI was an attempt to correct these systemic issues by encouraging or even enforcing diversity in groups of people who make decisions and influence decisions. Now it, and I’d argue “Affirmative Action” as well, is starting to mean a movement to “give power/opportunity to people because they are minorities whether or not they are sufficiently qualified”. Understand, I’m not in agreement with the transformation of these terms or the sentiment of the new “meanings” but I see them being used in the US in this manner more often. This makes every conversation confusing if you want to have a legitimate discussion of the ideas. It doesn’t help that the terms socialism and communism were never concrete terms to begin with.
Second, you’d be aware that there is literally a powerful force actively attempting to purge the original concepts of “woke” and “DEI” from government agencies. The current administration is working very hard to sabotage any agencies that recognize inequality or try to diversify. The administration has likely broken the law in its efforts to oust any agency leadership who promote these concepts. The administration wants to make the lives of any workers who agree with those concepts very difficult. Any agencies that are based on those core concepts are being spun down or turned into shells that somehow still have a name that implies they haven’t changed but in reality their leadership is working to ensure that the agency now serves the opposite function.
That’s what it is like being openly socialist or communist in today’s world. Everything bad is “socialist” or “communist” - it has been since the revolution in Russia. People have a knee jerk reaction on hearing those words. It’s strongly associated with North Korea, Stalin, and the CCP. Endless stories of violent authoritarianism, surveillance states, and the suppression of free speech. Tons of media - Animal Farm, 1984. As an aside, consider the violent suppression of climate or pro Palestine protesters, or the use of surveillance technology to spy on citizens… in capitalist nations.
Back to my point - if you are advocating for socialism, the West will work diligently to prop up existing capitalist leadership to prevent your success, possibly even help them rig elections. Propaganda will be spread among your population. If you manage to get elected, expect to be labeled extremist or even terrorist. Expect embargos, sanctions, and other economic warfare. Expect actual terrorists funded by the West to attempt to sabotage your nation. Expect or attempt to perform coups. Lobbyists would be throwing money you desperately need at your nation if it would just capitulate. Yes, even citizens might work against you because they are quite wealthy and powerful and your going to upset that. Or maybe honest citizens who’ve heard capitalism is great and socialism is bad and they don’t want to live in a bad nation. What’s the most effect method to survive a situation like that? You are under siege, paranoid, distrustful, woefully outmatched. Use your authority to defend your ideals and your hold on the government, sell out and become corrupt, or get squeezed out by a political opponent (or ally, trust noone) that is working for and funded by the West looking to restore their influence over your nation. Now you have a dictatorship.
You made a lot of assumptions about me in your comment. I’m not going to bother with them, because that’s honestly your job to handle.
I don’t equate communism with (democratic) socialism. I consider myself a democratic socialist, and that’s part of the reason I consider myself progressive. The main difference is that democratic socialism makes room for multiple political parties, while communism accommodates only one. This is the essence of tyranny. No progressive should advocate for communism, because communism is another form of authoritarianism: subjugation to state rule.
I have my problems with “woke” culture, just as I do with conservative culture. But most of my problems with woke culture have to do with their rhetoric and means of achieving their goals, rather than the goals themselves. A racially mixed workplace is something I highly value; achieving it by means of affirmative action is not something I support, because I think 50+ years of it have shown that it doesn’t really work. Yes, it has been shown to improve interracial relations in the workplace, but it has also been shown to cause workers to question the competency of coworkers that benefit from it, and make those who don’t feel discriminated against. This is not what it was intended for. It was supposed to counter inherent racist biases in corporate hiring systems. Instead, it’s become a system that is the very least viewed as a loophole for non-white employees. Obviously, not every case is an example of a non-white employee gaining an unfair advantage over a white employee, probably only a small fraction qualify as such, but as a system it has created the perception that Whites are being discriminated against. And its proponents have done virtually nothing to address that. That needs to change. I’m not saying the spirit of affirmative action needs to end, but its implementation need to change.
If and when you respond, I would encourage you to not make assumptions about my stance. I don’t fit into the political boxes neatly.
It seems to me that the problem stems from you thinking communism necessitates authoritarianism. Communism is an economic system. You say you consider yourself a democratic socialist, while there is obviously a bit more nuance, in the absolute basics, that is saying the economic system you believe in is socialism, and the system of governance you believe is a democracy. Someone saying they are a communist would be the same situation as you saying you are a socialist, it’s true but it doesn’t state your full political beliefs. I obviously don’t speak for the person you are responding to, nor can I assume that they have the same belief about this subject as I do, this is simply my interpretation of the disagreement, and my stance on it.
Additionally, I would like to respond to your earlier mention of asking a communist to give you an example of a communist country that worked out in the end. The reason many people respond negatively to this is because of the history of communism, especially in relation to the US which is where much of Lemmy is from. The US has a history of intentionally destabilizing communist(and socialist) countries, as communism is inherently a threat to a country so heavily built on massive corporations. Because the US and other countries make such a point of preventing communism from succeeding, it can be frustrating when a lack of successful large scale communism is used as proof that communism can’t work. Additionally, because this same argument is used so often, it can really begin to grate on someone’s nerves after being asked it over and over again.
I have tried my very best to not make any assumptions about you, other than the political ideology you stated you had, but if I accidentally did, please tell me. I do not wish to offend you, and rather just want to provide my input on what you have said.
It seems to me that the problem stems from you thinking communism necessitates authoritarianism.
It doesn’t technically necessitate it, it just makes it very likely to happen, due to its insistence on there being only one political party. Communism isn’t just an economic system, it’s predicated on a government-run economy in a way that most other economic systems aren’t.
Someone saying they are a communist would be the same situation as you saying you are a socialist
If they mean socialist, they should say ‘socialist.’ Most people understand this to mean that you’re for things like free education, medical care, etc. When you say you’re a communist, at least in the West, you’re signifying to others that you either like or support governments like the USSR and CCP. I understand what you’re saying about there being some overlap in the terms, but the main distinction to me is that communists believe in a single political party system of government, whereas socialists don’t.
Because the US and other countries make such a point of preventing communism from succeeding, it can be frustrating when a lack of successful large scale communism is used as proof that communism can’t work.
While the U.S. has certainly put a lot into preventing communism from spreading, it hasn’t always succeeded. I would argue that the communist states that do exist demonstrate its main problem quite clearly: a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it’s not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.
I have tried my very best to not make any assumptions about you, other than the political ideology you stated you had, but if I accidentally did, please tell me. I do not wish to offend you, and rather just want to provide my input on what you have said.
No, you didn’t make assumptions, and I appreciate your cordiality.
I unfortunately don’t know how to do the fancy qoute thing, so this won’t look as organized as yours.
“due to its insistence on there being only one political party.” Firstly, I disagree about communism needing to have only 1 political party, and to be honest don’t really why that would even have to much of an effect on it. Sure, it makes sense that communism would begin with 1 party in many cases, as it pretty much always requires a revolution of some kind, but if left time, that party would likely split over other issues. The other reason I could see this, is if the country is in a 2 party, or similar system, where 1 party is the communist party, and the other is an anti-communist party of some kind.
“it’s predicated on a government-run economy in a way that most other economic systems aren’t.” I would also disagree about it requiring a government run economy, though that has more to do with my personal political beliefs, than communism. What I more so disagree with is the bit about other economic systems requiring a government run economy. I feel that if there is a government, and an economy, one will be run by the other.
“If they mean socialist, they should say ‘socialist.’” Really, I was more so using this as an example of the difference between an economic system and a government system, not saying they were the same.
“When you say you’re a communist, at least in the West, you’re signifying to others that you either like or support governments like the USSR and CCP.” I do agree that this is a common perception in the west, it just isn’t true. I am a communist, I don’t like or support the USSR or the CCP, I have never met another communist in person that supports either. These people obviously do exist, they just aren’t nearly as common as most people assume.
“the main distinction to me is that communists believe in a single political party system of government, whereas socialists don’t.” I already said why I disagree with this, but I should probably say that to me, and I believe most other communists, the difference is that communism has no money or similar system, and socialism, like you said, has government funded systems such as health care, education, etc.
“While the U.S. has certainly put a lot into preventing communism from spreading, it hasn’t always succeeded.” I agree that the US hasen’t always fully succeeded in stopping communism, but it(or another government) has always succeeded in greatly harming communist countries.
“a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it’s not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.” I fully agree with you here.
If they ever picked up or even looked history on communism, they would actually won’t advocate for it
It’s always the same dipshit argument from ignorant liberals that have done a fraction of the reading and never even think to question whether they apply their own standards to themselves as they demand every socialist answer for the century old crimes of the Stalinists while their favored systems obviously had nothing to do with segregation or empire.
All while they’re obviously a special snowflake of a free thinker who “doesn’t fit into any boxes” because they don’t even know what the boxes are, yet insist on mindlessly repeating the same trite nonsense every other enlightened “centrist” vomits forth.
Linux/SteamDeck = Good Anything else = bad
Porn games should be available for all, but GOG sucks because they did something shitty years ago.
The only thing worse than a right winger is the wrong kind of leftist. (I feel this is a global thing not only US)
Anyone who supports the current governments of Russia or China are not really leftists.
Lemmy is not neurotypical and it shows up with various discussions. Discussions here tend to assume autism or AuDHD as typical behavior, when it is only typical for the group of people assembled here.
Also half of all lemmings are transgender. No idea why.
The chemicals in the protocols are turning the nerds gay
Trans people are almost attacked or banned all other platforms or at least astroturfed, it does make sense
Yep, I’m not trans but one of the main reasons I stopped even visiting reddit was how much transphobia there is everywhere. Like I used to be in a ton of LGBTQ+ subs and it was even showing up in there. I’m not about that life.
That’s fair. Is Reddit also like that now? I haven’t used it in a couple of years.
Woke and DEI, is why. Now put the damn socks on and get to work. Once Arch is installed, you may indulge in one Blåhaj
Yes! Meow meow.
Ok, uh… is this, like, a… catgirl thing? That’s a thing, innit? Catgirl femboy? Catboy? Catfemboy? Just a catgirl?
Honestly, this is what I get for making too many references not applicable to me.
I did try Arch at some point. Didn’t work out, even though I was following instructions online. Probably because I didn’t have the socks. I still don’t have 'em.
You should get the socks and try again.
Eh, I’m not that interested in Arch. I have Pop!_OS, and it just works (unlike Manjaro, that broke at least once every six months). I was installing it on an older laptop, just for the sake of it (not sure if I would’ve used it later on)
Also, I’m sure it’d be hella sus to get striped thigh-high socks. Especially with such warm days (we have coloured heat warnings 'round these parks!) Installing Arch I can explain, and no one would care. Just tech nerd mumbo jumbo, who gives a shit. Why I need long, colourful socks?! …
Other than that, yeah, I’d do it. Fun socks and computers? Fuck yeah! I mean, not with this heat. But come colder days? Fuck yeah!
People before profit.
Cities should be walkable
AI as we know it was unethically developed and is more marketing than solution.
Trans rights are human rights. Even more, gender is a spectrum, so everyone really, is a tiny bit trans.
Fuck Israel.
Punch fascists.
Instant nudeln eignen gut für MaiMais
I mean if this was an ad for Lemmy, it would work on me. Though I’m not sure what the fuck the last one is but it sounds fun anyway, Melden Sie mich an.
How is everyone a tiny bit trans, as you say? Genuinely curious since everything else you said resonates quite strongly with me, I’m just not sure what you mean by that point in particular.
It’s a spectrum so there are two extremes, you’re either at one extreme the 100% pure male or the other the 100% pure female. There can only be one person at either end. Therefore unless you, particularly, are one of the extremes (and let’s be honest those two people have no clue it’s them) you are on the spectrum somewhere in between. Meaning you are a tiny bit trans.
I think that’s a false dichotomy though, because that assumes gender standards and presentations are universally consistent, when in practice it is often highly dependent on social context and individual perception.
What defines someone as masculine in the US is not 1:1 with the concept of masculinity in China, or France, or Kenya, for instance. On top of that, one’s personal understanding of masculinity and femininity likely differs slightly (or greatly) from the general standards of the society around them.
The easiest concept of gender is to just trust people when they tell you who they are. It’s entirely an internal, personal understanding of identity, and it’s mutable.
What defines someone as masculine in the US is not 1:1 with the concept of masculinity in China, or France, or Kenya, for instance. On top of that, one’s personal understanding of masculinity and femininity likely differs slightly (or greatly) from the general standards of the society around them.
For that I’d say this applies to the country in question
Just not across borders.That’s still assuming gender norms are consistent even within a given country, though. E.g. masculinity among Asian Americans is often seen as “lesser than” compared to white Americans by virtue of racial physiology alone. The concept of having a full beard is masculine, but if you’re unable to grow a full beard, does that make your gender presentation inherently less masculine than someone who can?
Everything is subjective, with “norms” only illustrating a loose general trend that is very inconsistent and changes over time, to the point that I think it’s a useless comparison. If a man chooses to dress and act femme but insists they’re a man and are happy having a penis, just trust them. No need to try to arbitrarily place them on a gradient of “partially trans in denial” if that’s not how they identify.
That’s interesting. I have to think more about this but it certainly makes sense, I certainly don’t feel 100% pure male based on… many things. Thank you for explaining.
Nintendo is worse than EA, Activision, Konami, Ubisoft, Epic, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Nestle, and the IDF combined.
There may be some things they do that annoy me, but there also a lot of things they do that I like, and I don’t think they’re anywhere near the worst in the industry right now. It is just so very tiring that it is seemingly impossible to discuss anything related to Nintendo at all without threads immediately devolving into a circlejerk about how much some of y’all hate anyone who dares to even enjoy their games.
I don’t think Nintendo sucks. I’m also older and remember what they did to gaming when it started. They still put out title after title of quality games.
They still put out title after title of quality games.
Me doubt
