it’s weird that when the company does nasty shit, nobody names him as the head asshole in charge the way that other companies and ceos get handled.
hard to remember name (for americans, europeans, or at least me) i assume compare that to “Spez” which is very, very easy to remember and plaster around as the one evil to blame for a systems behavior
To a lot of people, trans women are just women they can still abuse.
the behaviors your describing dont seem “obectively” problematic whatsoever, but there are two things here that matter:
There are other reasons too though.
By the way, I am not saying that “the category transgender is oppressive and we should stop using it” but i do hope for a future where queer people live in such peace to the point where there is no need to rally behind labels, where we can just exist with our behaviors, being ourselves.
I feel there has been a misunderstanding here.
Im not saying anything against furries, I am instead stating that our ideas of normality are entirely socially constructed, meaning this bill could be applied to basically any behavior depending on your interpretation of what is “typical to homo sapiens” I could, for example, state that it is normal for someone to be a furry, as humans have a long history of portraying themselves in similar ways. I could also say that a piercing is an “atypical” accessory not permitted by the rules. There is no such thing as normal. To call something weird is just to simply state that you haven’t been exposed to it enough for it to qualify as weird for you.
Wow there sure is a lot of behavior and accessories not “typcal to homo sapiens” makes me wonder what the hell they even mean here by “typical”, it’s like calling someone “objectively not normal” while ignoring that your entire view on normality is based on what you have been exposed to. I am not a furry or a therian or anything, but the flaws in this law absolutely allow it to be applied to just about any “behavior or accessory”
The law defines “non-human” behavior “any type of behavior… [not typically] displayed by a member of the homo sapiens species,”
NATHON!! STOP ACTING LIKE A HOMO ERECTUS YOU NEANDERTHAL!
also im pretty sure “human” means ‘under the homo genus’ not ‘homo sapien’ but its not like it matters to them
Ah. did not realize that, thank you
I feel many of the examples you gave for “Form” dont even really fit. “Chairs” are an abstraction we created, so is the sensation of temperature (albeit this sensation is less absorbed, it is more automatic, fundamental, immutable compared to the concept of a chair) I see life as reproducing emergence. I love looking at artifical life and emergence, its really interesting seeing all the different digital mediums we have created that have seemed to allow for compex evolving ‘life’ to emerge.
Seeing these “artificial life” simulations does make me see all that which only kind of fits into the definition of life. I have seen evolving organisms come out only because rules were created to give them a genome, death, and reproduction, but I have also see simulations made out of incredibly simple rules that produce complex evolving reproducing patterns.
It feels to me that “life” is just a line in the sand we have drawn, and this line exists only because stuff that falls into our “life” category are the best at reproduction and competition.
It is also my view that questions like these can be vague, leaving different people to understand the question differently, leading to them giving different responses. I personally understood this as “is the concept of life an abstraction”
i have seen others hide prompts via small text and unicode characters that make invisible text. I imagine you could also use unicode characters that look exactly like normal characters, these characters then maybe messing with tokenization or something.
The simple fact that there is an unnecessary amount of control given to a single person over the information and communication you share and consume automatically makes the environment this person controls an unsafe environment for free speech. Yes, there should be moderation, but it should by moderation by the community, not the person on the top of the unnecessary hierarchy. Centralized social media only serves its owners, it exists for no other reason.
Fukushima had a fucking earthquake and a tsunami theiwn at it, AND the company which made it cut corners. It was still, much, much less bad than it could have been and the reactor still partially withstood a lot of damage.
In the United States at least (and i assume the rest of the world) nuclear energy is so overegulated that many reactors can have meltdowns without spelling disaster for the nearby area. Nuclear caskets (used to transport and store wastes) can withstand fucking missle strikes.
Im not going to pretend that there arent genuine issues with nuclear, such as cost and construction time(*partially caused by the overegulation), but genuine nuclear disaster has only ever resulted from the worst of human decisions combined with the worst of circumstances. Do i trust humans not to make shitty mistakes? No, not with all this overegulation, but still, even counting Fukushima and Chernobyl, more people die from wind (and especially fossil fuels) then nuclear per terawatt of electricity production.