i think it would be more symbolic to extend the rainbow peace flag over it.

growing up, the most common ‘counterargument’ (read: dismission) to ‘global warming’ i heard was ‘great, i love summer!’

i had to become a singer before i had the lung capacity to sigh hard enough.

Did you look for a nest or another bird in the original shrub?

i didn’t see anything in the bush at first glance. i tried to see if it was leading me somewhere, but it didn’t seem like it. i didn’t want to stress them out by approaching them too quickly or digging thru the bush.

they did seem very small, so it’s possible they don’t know how to feed themself. it’s not too far, so i can try checking on them sometime soon. i don’t want to invade their home, tho.

my guess is it was trying to get you to help one of its friends or something.

that was my first guess, but it didn’t seem like it was leading me anywhere.

i’m a little worried now.

I’d have had a good search around the area befriending crows can actually bring you some benifit like shiny gifts

when i was homeless, i shared my food with a crow. i got them to bring me coins by feeding them double portions when they brought monies.

or in some cases crow bodyguards as they actually recognise individuals as friends etc.

that’s my current relationship to the corvids in town. a long time ago i rescued a magpie from two seagulls, and since then all the corvids no longer fly away when i come near them. the magpies even defended me from a seagull one day!

but they otherwise don’t approach me, and we don’t ‘communicate’.

that was my first guess, but after i tried getting back on the path they only kept putting grass on my feet. i tried holding still, backing away, moving toward them, moving back into the grass, making noises, and checked in the bush — it just kept putting grass on me. i didn’t immediately see anything. i was afraid of scaring or upsetting them, so i left.

someone else suggested they’re a juvenile that doesn’t know how to feed themself.

but what about these posts that are like:

ah right, yeah. i updated my original snippet with the styling for hiding posts also.

It is good though that we don’t have republicans groups here, so half the problem is solved on Lemmy by default.

there are neocon and alt-right instances, but they don’t normally federate, or they’re quarantined very quickly (usually for posting CSAM… hmmm…).

some apps and frontends let you filter posts and comments.

if you’re in the browser: blocking an instance from your account settings will block postshide communities from that instance. this also has the benefit that you don’t get notified when someone from a blocked instance replies to you or sends you a message.

to hide comments and other posts in the browser on the default frontend, i use a userstyle:

/* hides posts */
.post-listing:has(* > .person-listing[href$="@lemmy.world"])
{
    display: none;
}

/* hides comments and replies */
.comment-node:has(* > .person-listing[href$="@lemmy.world"]),
.comment-node:has(* > .person-listing[href$="@lemmy.world"]) + .comments
{
  display: none;
}

/*
* hides post separators in feed.
*
* (a) it's more compact this way.
* (b) they get left behind when hiding posts.
* 
*/
.my-3 { display: none; }

EDIT: corrections. more code. put inside a details block.

yeah.

that’s all i’ve got to say, but i have a strong urge to say it.

It was a revelation to me: to have flat structures, you not only need to make it possible to organize without hierarchy, but you also need a process to constantly weed out emerging hierarchies.

i’ve noticed this is a common source of disagreement i keep having with nonanarchists.

where someone thinks that i’m advocating purely for the organisational aspects of anarchism, but not also materially, socially, culturally, and politically. they’ll dismiss my criticisms of the current system or proposals for alternatives as ‘that would never work today’, and instead cite monolithic, mythological essentialisms like ‘human nature’ at me which is just their opportunity to mansplain capitalist logic to me and throw down some ‘might makes right’ moral argument. people who think tool libraries would never work because one time their underpaid coworkers kept stealing other persons’ food from the breakroom fridge or something and well that’s proof of the greed inherent to all human beings and no we will not interrogate what leads them to stealing food. material conditions? what’s that?

anarchism to me isn’t simply a worldview or a form of organisation: it’s a lifestance, a lifestyle, a way of being, a way of thinking and a way of acting — and i believe it works best when it is all of those things. social change is cultural change is political change. when i advocate for change, i’m advocating to change both the system and the people who recreate it.

‘but how will you prevent [insert consequence of hierarchical conditioning] from happening under anarchism?’

mine came with a battery defect and no longer turns on. i used it a total of four times.

postcovid prevents me from going to the library to print the RMA and then to the post office to actually ship the fucking thing, and i have no one to help me get rid of it. so now it’s a paperweight.

she’s alluding to the fact that these characters — the ‘soyjack’ and ‘gigachad’ — are historically, and still actively are, alt-right charicatures. together with their friends, ‘tradwife’ and ‘doomer (girl)’: they represent misogynistic, racist, antisemitic, and white supremacist tropes.

at which point your profit becomes linked to the degree to which you provide the functionality

except when the commodity is a basic necessity and there’s no alternatives. ‘the market’ can’t really ‘vote with their wallet’ on the cost and quality of shelter, particularly when price fixing is rampant.

sidenote: ‘voting with your wallet’ implies people with more money than you should have more say in what’s ‘more valuable’, because the rich can always outbid you, and homo economicus is only a thought experiment. (see: foreign real estate investment, conspicuous consumption…)

i’m going to ignore your posting history and assume for a moment you aren’t a contrarian debate pervert. what exactly is the point you are trying to get across?

you agree we should move past animal cruelty, but because we have animal cruelty today, we still need to have animal cruelty today?

you agree that animal testing is fundamentally wrong, but because someone was unconsensually subjected to unethical experimentation, we need to keep the animal testing?

why do you feel the need to agree with people but then say ‘but that’s not how it works today’?

i see these types of comments in every comment section about societal problems. ‘i agree X needs to change to Y, but we don’t have Y today, sweaty. 💅’ like- what? are you all really just trolls, or do you really think you’re being insightful and helpful? because this isn’t what a discussion looks like. it’s dis-miss-ion.

being trans and having auDHD with a childhood passion for natural philosophy inoculated me against heteronormative brainworms and their cousins: capitalist, workist, Protestant-work-ethic bullshit.

being mobbed, assaulted and abused because of this — by parents, siblings, peers, teachers and strangers — is what taught me to hate.

losing friends to war, suicide, and honour killings is what taught me hopelessness.

watching my parents work 90 hour weeks and still struggle to pay the bills showed me the contradictions.

being abandoned and homeless as a teenager when i started fighting back is what radicalised me.

Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Luxemburg, Beer, Stallman, Graeber, Swartz and Serafinski taught me why i’m angry, and taught me how to imagine again.

the fight against triple oppression is what keeps me going.

it’s like you wrote:

providing a few predefined options for you […] instead of you having to find the words to explain how uncomfortable you are and what you want the solution to be.

i’m speaking from my experience with script change. it’s a low-friction, consistent way for anyone at the table to communicate both how they’re feeling and an explicit, specific resolution/action that is known to all players with the agreement that no one *needs* to get into details or explain themself. if something shockingly uncomfortable happens, it’s much easier to reflexively lift/tap a card, or type 2 – 3 characters in the chat, than it is to abrasively yell ‘stop!’ and then try to discuss it over.

i’ve seen cases where someone yelling to stop was interpreted to be IC. or that they were just ‘caught up in the moment’. (this is the reason for safewords; the cards are known to be meta/OOC.) or they didn’t completely know where a scene was going, but they had a suspicion, but they didn’t want to disappoint the group, and player safety wasn’t a part of the pregame discussion so they didn’t know how to express their discomfort and froze. the misunderstanding always only lasted some seconds, but it always lasted a few seconds too long for the person in discomfort. if it needs a discussion: ‘pause’ and take five to talk with the GM or another player privately.

in every group where player safety is discussed and safety tools are used: i’ve never seen a scene get far enough to make someone uncomfortable, and it rarely impacts the flow of the game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodniks

syndicalism is a tendency of libertarian socialism. it was anarchists engaging in — typically violent — direct action that bred the popular labour movement, women’s suffrage, the abolition of racial segregation, and others.

How did a philosophy of minimized government involvement contribute to the regulations and enforcement mechanisms around our labor laws?

… because we live in a society? the State needs labour, but if all the labourers refuse to sell themselves until labour-buyers stop X, then the State may decide very graciously to abolish the practise of X. so the theory of syndicalism goes: rinse and repeat till you have eroded all the power of labour-buyers, and you can seize the workplace and cut out the State.

the same ‘literally nothing’ that currently stops us from ending starvation, poverty, homelessness, war…

people and ideology create the institutions which (re)produce and enforce a status quo. this is not inherently bad, and it would not be significantly different under any other ‘system’. we are all the state so long as we do nothing different.

Per the March All Hands discussion […]

i guess from experience that this was neither ‘all hands’ nor a ‘dicussion’. it was 'whoever[‘s logged in before office hours| doesn’t want to enjoy their lunch] gets to look at boomer memes and dull graphs for 2 hours while listening to the latest round of edicts graciously handed down by the Board.’

if you missed it, and you’re lucky, they recorded it. if you’re very lucky: you get an email with the slide deck and talking points for what could’ve just been an email to begin with.

indoctrination is when words