Bully XL? Ewww

A court I’d not heard about until now, for a case funded by a transphobe who writes shitty wizard books.

To go further, I think the judgement is wrong and probably has their own biases shining through.

I think it is hard to see injustice if you do not want to see it.

When black people couldn’t use the same bathrooms as white folk. Here, Trans women including those post op for 20 - 30 years are not allowed to use the women’s bathroom and have to use the men’s. Likewise, a trans man, born woman, that has been a man for decades has to use the women’s bathroom.

Wasn’t sure it needed to be spelt out, but needs to be to understand how ridiculous all this is (because of a court case in Scotland about women’s representation on boards). Shocking how many rights got trashed with that and how many transhobic politicians got excited.

AMD or NVidia?

Most games that I play work well on Linux with AMD. Most who have problems seem to have Nvidia. Anti-cheat stuff can be an exception though so best to ensure what you enjoy works.

If you can check hardware compatibility before hand, it helps. An up to date kernel like Fedora, OpenSuse TW or Arch can help. Wine recommends up to date kernel.

They boycotted when Vinicius Jr didn’t win the Ballon D’or. They probably didn’t think they were going to win against Arsenal so didn’t show up.

It seems to be happening again.

The whiniest, sulkiest team known to man.

The only reason to play for Real now is money, because respect will be absent.

When they’re still paying dividend, asking for extra money, you know they’re not serious about improving. End it. Nationalise it.

reads looks at instance ah, of course, Lemmy.world

Most of those issues I do not have. By waking from suspend, do you mean hibernate? A system d update broke that last year in OpenSuse and I’m assuming other distros. I sleep now and it wakes fine.

Appreciate the sentiment.

Anti-feminist views are far right views and they go hand in hand with other conservative views like homophobia.

I do disagree with this. I’ve already pointed out about family courts and the experience men face. Some aspect of feminism do push to make this worse for men, and objecting to radical feminism doesn’t necessarily mean that person has homophobic and transphobic views. For example, TERF’s claim to be feminists but their views on trans are far right. I think maybe the distinction here is that while feminism is a good and positive thing, objections to radical forms of feminism should not be taken as right wing, as it that line of logic reads as anyone opposed to any form of feminism (extreme in particular) is unacceptable. I don’t think pushing folks who have genuine grievances to feeling their only reasonable political home is right wing is healthy.

To really clarify this point, there are people within the family courts service and social services that actively look to block a fathers access to their children. Risk is often used to create a situation that prevents a fathers access to their children, and more importantly, a child’s access to both parents. In the UK for example, feminists are pushing for the mere suggestion of domestic abuse (proven or not) to seriously affect court proceedings. While it is an important factor, and cannot be ignored, there are some mothers that will use this as part of a strategy to carry out revenge for feeling they have been wronged. For example, as victims of adultery, which while horrible, should not impact on a child’s contact with their father. There are voices within that to reject that parental alienation is even a real possibility and unfortunately it is dangerously widespread and very effective.

I sadly just don’t know anymore, and was ready to block and move on when this guy came back with some reasonable reason that doesn’t makes any sense at all…

I read this, as you didn’t know, so you were going to block. I was informing you it was an error, but the quoted text didn’t read as you were waiting to find out before blocking.

I guess I don’t get how folk just block something they disagree with. I understand blocking bad faith actors. I don’t understand not finding out if someone was operating in good faith or not. My intention is generally to assume folk are in good faith unless there is clear information to the contrary.

I take it you have not been through the family courts then?

I have not. I also did not say that this aspect of famiy law is not unfair to men. It is grossly unfair! It also has a complex history that isn’t easy to boil down to “men are bad, women are better”. It comes from patriarchal structures than enforce gendered roles that disadvantage both men and women.

But acknowledging is is unfair to men isn’t the same as saying misandry and misogyny are the same, because they have different effects and require different approaches to counteract them.

For example, misogyny accounts for violence against women at a greater extent than misandry accounts for violence against men. And to be clear: I am not saying that one of these situations is not as bad as the other. But they require different resources to manage the consequence and different approaches to tackle them.

I agree with this, and don’t think they should be compared. They are separate problems that both need to be solved, not compared. I think problematically, the wealthy would rather pit men against women and vice versa because it diverts anger from the wealthy which are the real priviledged folk. Working class women, and men do not have a good shake of it. People with access to wealth will also get better legal outcomes and suffer less of the same challenges that most would.

Most men aren’t CEOs holding women down. Most don’t feel that theoretical privilege.

Most CEOs aren’t women. While the average man might not feel that theoretical privilege, they are still represented in a way women are not. The discourse around privilege is not about making someone feel bad for having it, it’s about empowering people to recognise when others don’t have it.

What is the value of the representation though. It doesn’t bring in material benefit for most, just suppresses women’s income, and more specifically parents with the lion share of the responsibility for raising offspring as men raising children as single fathers also have an income penalty. It’s less a gender penalty and more of a childrearing penalty. Yes, women will generally be more adversely affected by this, but to treat it as a gendered issue and only solve it for women will not address the issue or make it go away.

The funny thing is that folk are so fixated on dogma around feminism they end up losing their audience in a debate. You see “shut up, man child. Acknowledge your privilege” attitudes followed by “why are men listening to Andrew Tate and not feminists”. The first should be locked up for a long time. The latter do contribute to pushing men away to the monosphere

Here’s a good example of male privilege: for decades, automobile safety systems were designed and tested with dummies that advantaged average males over females. For a man stepping into a vehicle, who had nothing to do with the design and testing of the safety systems, he probably won’t feel any more privileged than a woman in the same vehicle. But if the vehicle is in a serious accident, the woman is less protected.

Acknowledging that isn’t saying “shut up, you have no right to complain about the dangers of cars because someone else has it worse than you”. But it’s a reminder that there are other people with different experiences and needs to yours, because of the privileges not afforded to them.

I think any reasonable person would acknowledge that and want to fix that. It isn’t acceptable.

Also, to address your final point: there is a long and storied history of chauvenists derailing conversations about misogyny by centering the dialogue on their complaints and injustices. This is why some men are told “shut up, man child”. I’m not a woman but I can imagine women are exhausted by this.

I think the response is also exhausting and does contribute to the division that is happening now. Unfortunately vast swaths of positive changes for inclusivity and diversity are getting wiped out because people didn’t want to have fair debates and pushed folk to toxic content creators. The fact society for a long time made talking about men’s issues taboo has created an unfortunate widespread rejection of this which is going to be hard to put back in the box. It is quite disturbing and those negative toxic folks are likely to damage the causes of men fighting against the injustices faced. Ultimately, the goal isn’t division, but solidarity. Solidarity and understanding are hard. It’s very easy to take the carrots and the rage bait and harden our positions rather than push ourselves to find that common ground.

I don’t feel penalising folk or invalidating experiences is fair response to misogynists hijacking men’s issues for their own political goals.

I meant it the other way around. Feel free to block me for a mistake as you suggest in your follow up post.

Great suggestion. Great game. Very chill.

I take it you have not been through the family courts then?

Most men in that situation would trade 10-15% of their income for fair access to their kids. They also could come out with £30k debt which would be like 10% of their income for 20 years. This isn’t including the mental damage that can be inflicted.

Ask any parent is money or access to their kids more important. Very few would say money.

Most men aren’t CEOs holding women down. Most don’t feel that theoretical privilege.

The funny thing is that folk are so fixated on dogma around feminism they end up losing their audience in a debate. You see “shut up, man child. Acknowledge your privilege” attitudes followed by “why are men listening to Andrew Tate and not feminists”. The first should be locked up (edit: Andrew Tate this refers to) for a long time. The latter (edit: referring to those divisive posters) do contribute to pushing men away to the manosphere.

He doesn’t own shares?

They do say it is the lowest form of wit.

Not everyone speaks English as a first language here. What is obvious to you, isn’t obvious to everyone.

Playing devils advocate. Lemmy isn’t reddit and the only reason people used old reddit was because new reddit was unusable to them.

As with new context and new front ends that Lemmy has, no one with the technical skills seems to care about this enough and blaming Lemmy Devs for not tiptoeing around unmaintained software so development grinds to a halt isn’t fair. It’s like saying “they don’t want to support it, and I don’t, but you shouldn’t spend your free time doing so”.

I thought the point of the right to bear arms was about freedom. If you need consent from a sheriff and it’s based on their feelings, it’s giving them freedom to take rights away.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a US citizen and guns are banned here, but the main reason for it seems to be playing out, and taking those freedoms away could be massively dangerous. More so than the threat of gun violence right now. How could any opposition defend themselves being shipped off to El Salvador en masse if a secretary of state things you contradict foreign policy goals?