We know you are a junkie Strung out in heaven’s high Hitting an all-time low

One thing I find very interesting about how brains process reality is that there’s a disease that makes your eyes have blind spots. However people with that disease don’t see those blind spots because the brain fills the gaps with the information it knows to be there. So you could see a door closed just as it was when you last looked at it directly, but in the meantime someone opened the door and you’re still seeing the door closed until you look at it directly.

What is a superuser in Lemmy? What can it do that’s so special? I don’t think I’ve ever encountered one.

Is it? Then what is the gender of the person you’re replying? Surely if it was important you would need to know it before replying. The fact that you can reply someone without knowing their gender is proof that it doesn’t matter here.

If gender didn’t mattered IRL, trans people would be seen in the same light of someone who likes wearing black, or is unhappy with the way their nose looks to the point of doing a surgery about it. Trans people suffer because society puts a lot of importance in gender, therefore wanting to dress clothes from a different gender, or having a body that looks a different gender are “radical” ideas that offend simple-minded people.

That’s a very bad decision as a manager, if I was another employee in that store I would take that to mean never control kids in the store, let the manager deal with that.

And if I was the friend I would have asked during that exchange with the manager present “So, I assume that means she’s paying for everything the kid broke before I asked him to stop, right?” Just to see the reactions.

People downvoting you are very self-centered, they don’t understand the importance of a job for lots of people. Until we have UBI, jobs like these will always be necessary.

I know there are several reading orders available depending on which stories you want to prioritize, but I like publication order because you can see him creating the world. As in you can usually see him writing some one liners that prompt some ideas which are fully explored in the next book, I don’t remember any specific things but it’s stuff like talking about Gods being as powerful as how many people believe in them right before small gods.

The Navidson record is a movie though.

It’s probably fine, but you can accidentally short it when moving it around by touching it or resting it up on something conductive, even if you’re careful dust might short it as well, but this is much rarer.

As a general rule I would try to avoid it, but would not be my first concern.

If you read the first story (The colour of Magic + The light fantastic) you will know the story of the librarian, he start as a human there hahahah.

Someone else already suggested it, but I would second Terry Pratchett. Even though most of the books are standalone, I recommend start with the Colour of Magic and follow publication order.

I disagree, I think Cryptonomicon is a very heavy book, might be too much for someone just starting, I’ve been slowly reading it for months, but I end up getting tired of it and reading something else to rest from it before going back and end up forgetting half of the characters and what they were doing.

Now is the perfect time for you to read “The end of Eternity”, I’m not going to spoil it, just go.

Steam vs GoG is a turf war, Epic vs anything will make people side with anything. The problem is that Epic has a shitty store with shitty features, and the only way it can compete with the others out there is to pay piles of money to game devs so they make their game exclusive to their store for some time. So usually people just ignore the game until it comes up in another store, and most of us have completely forgotten about it by then so when we find out just add it to the wishlist and wait for a 90% discount in a while. The game has been out for years at that point so a massive discount is expected soon and you already waited years to play, you can wait a bit more and save money, plus that teaches companies that signing exclusivity contracts is a shit deal.

Do you find it important that Spider-Man does not exist? Do you think anyone in their right mind would find it important? No, but the moment someone starts to force you to do or not do stuff because Spider-Man thinks it’s bad it becomes important to make it clear that Spider-Man is not real.

The VAST majority of atheist are indifferent towards religion, unless that religion is trying to control them somehow. This is why you don’t see atheist complaining about Buddhism in western countries, if a religion is not trying to force itself into an atheist life he cares as much as you do about all of the thousands of other religions you’re an atheist towards. If you feel atheist are trying to impose their non-believe on you, it’s because you’re trying to impose your belief on them and they’re calling you on your bullshit.

Also, btw, I never claimed I was an atheist, so I see no reason for you to think that atheist should believe the same thing I do.

Nope, he finds it important no one uses what to him is a fictional character to push laws and regulations. You would also care if people prohibited you from doing something you like to do or think is important because Superman said it was wrong.

That’s a big difference, in general atheist don’t care about God(s), they care about people trying to use God(s) to push an agenda, but the people who’re trying to use God(s) to push that agenda rarely see the difference.

I don’t live there anymore, and it’s not the oldest building, but there is a pub in Dublin that’s been running since 1198, they claim to be Ireland’s oldest pub but IIRC the claim is a bit bogus.

I didn’t say that they provide no value, I said that the argument of you can’t tolerate intolerance can’t be used to advocate intolerance towards a group that contains tolerant people, even if the majority of them were not then the argument applies to those specific people, not to the group as a whole.

Not reasonable because you’re making a broad generalization that everyone in that country will be intolerant. I’m in favor of facilitating immigration, in fact I’m an immigrant myself, but I do believe that specific people who have intolerant views of others should not be allowed to immigrate.

For example (since this is the most obvious example for immigration), not all Muslims are intolerant, lots of them just want to live a normal life, follow their religion and are okay with others following theirs. Other Muslims are intolerant towards different religions or ways of life, just like how you have Christians who think the same. If you make a broad statement of “all Muslim immigrants are intolerant” you’re the one being intolerant, if you say “People who are not okay with LGBT+ rights or freedom of religion should not be allowed to immigrate” then I’m okay with that statement. But in reality the majority of people who oppose immigration also oppose LGBT+ and freedom of religion so it’s unlikely they’ll use this argument.

Also I think that as a general rule immigration requires adaptation, if you’re interested in moving to another country you should adapt to the culture (and even more importantly the laws) of that place. To give a somewhat innocuous example of this, here in Europe is common for women to expose their breasts when going to the beach, in other parts of the world (possibly including the US) people would be horrified and demand that they’re forced to cover themselves, in fact I can imagine a stereotypical US Karen demanding that someone covers their breasts because their kid will see them, but curiously I’ve never seen that happen. In fact I’ve even seen Muslim women on the beach, covered from head to toe with special made swimsuits, in the beach near others who were sunbathing and neither of them complained about the other, they just enjoyed their day at the beach their own way. That Muslim woman was likely an immigrant, yet she understands that this is not the same country she grew up, it has different rules and different culture, and she’s okay with it, she teaches her values and her culture to their kids, but also teaches them that they need to respect others, and those kind of immigrants not a problem, unlike an intolerant co-citizen.

Yes, I agree, it’s not always black in white, but your example is a bad example, I don’t care the language someone says that, “The Jews should be eliminated” is an intolerant statement, just as much as “The Muslims should be eliminated”, regardless of who says it, it’s intolerant and should not be excused by someone’s skin color.

Also we must clarify if we’re talking about moral or legal argument, as I said morally I think you’re okay punching someone in the face when they said you should be eliminated, legally you should probably have some proof of that.

With what level of force are you going to attack them?

With forço proportional to the threat, just like the moral basis for any any self defense. You can’t shoot someone who pushed you, but someone who threaten your life is morally (and if you have proof of the threat and it is believable also legally) fair game. Same thing applies here, someone stating “X should be prevented from voting” should not legally be allowed to be punched, but should have his voting rights removed temporarily.

Or force to the extent that they die from it? After all nothing’s safer than a dead attacker.

Yes, if they threaten your, or anyone’s, life then killing them is self defense and morally okay in my opinion. So someone claiming “all X should be exterminated” can morally be killed.

Ok but now you’re the one talking about extermination… so what do we do with you? The problem with the Paradox of Tolerance is that there’s a Paradox of Intolerance, too.

Yes, that’s why it’s a paradox, it wouldn’t be a paradox if it didn’t have some contradiction in it. But that contradiction is easy to fix, in my examples X must be a superset of people that includes tolerant people. This means that Jews or Muslims are an invalid X, since there are tolerant Jews or Muslims, but “people who wish (non-X) dead” are not, e.g. “people who wish Muslims dead” are a valid X.