If you respond instantly at any point during the day it can mean you’re not doing anything the entire day or you’re actually desperate for interaction. If you don’t feel secure in your relationship with someone you might want them to think you have a lot going on.

Also, some research shows being less available can make you seem more valuable. This article is related to business relationships but it’s the same principle. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/smarter-living/benefits-of-being-scarce.html

I’m connecting using freestyle gunz which is still maintained and I can connect to it on windows

I’m glad for you that you don’t have any of the republican stereotypes currently in your life.

Oh yeah I get what you mean, and I’ve seen that happen a lot. I just meant along with that, it’s good people seem to talk more about why something is bad rather than “because I said so,” since it makes it a cooperation instead of a battle.

I actually like that sometimes kids have outbursts and insubordination met with a conversation (but still keeping some form of punishment), because sometimes they’re having a bad day, sometimes they just got tempted and you can talk about it, and sometimes they just weren’t thinking because they’re kids.

Everything else I agree with, it’s hard for parents to stop their kids from being addicted to their phones when the parents are also addicted to their phones :/

Lol what it’s someone being rude and getting kicked for it

.world is also the most commonly linked instance on reddit, so half the time you’re just dealing with angry redditors. Generally every time I say “wow this is so disappointing to see” it’s a .world post and the other half of the comments are trying to fight back against them. I think it’s just the nature of online communities that they get more toxic as they grow.

You’re definitely dodging more toxicity than you are positivity with blocking .world, every time I’ve seen just the worst comment ever it’s from .world. There might be an app or way to block the comments but not the posts from an instance, since nearly all .world posts seem fine (you could ask in the app community on lemmy, they’re generally super friendly). Sorry I can’t give better advice. Me personally I just stick to the positive communities and only brave the .world trenches if I’m feeling up to it (and make heavy use of blocking toxic communities)

I’m sorry you had to deal with that lemmy is definitely a bit more wild in terms of strong opinions, some very cool people on here but also a lot of immaturity.

I’m not trans but isn’t that a normal thing to think before posting? I’m fine with saying to my friends “(wo)men have hurt me in the past, and it makes me less trustful of them” but I wouldn’t comment that publicly, since either I get weirdos saying “yeah I hate (wo)men too” or weirdos saying “the other sex does this but worse!” Either way they don’t get what I mean, so I’m going to be very careful with qualifying what I say. It’s a hot-button topic and it sucks I have to do that just to share an experience, but a lot of people are sensitive (myself included) to perceived attacks. I still get people misunderstanding it, but that’s usually 1/100 instead of 1/5. It sucks that it doesn’t feel like a group of friends, but there are a lot of communities on lemmy that will ban people acting like jerks (lemmy.blahaj.zone for one)

This is why I use it, also the more people who use it the more accurate it is

Lol that is probably the funniest way to give a source I’ve seen

Oh I’ve seen I think all of the others, which is why this one was a little disappointing to me. The 2nd and 3rd videos in the playlist are something I think about a lot, where conservatives are taught all the deflection arguments and fake accusations so at no point do they need to defend the indefensible. I more just wanted to bump the post in case someone else comes across his channel and gets interested, since about 70% of what he makes are bangers

I felt like the content of this video was already pretty evident, maybe just because I’ve heard other creators talk about dealing with this same issue so often.

I find this happens any time I engage with anything anyone on the right also likes watching, like a gun channel, or a non-political video from a right leaning channel. I think the algorithm is just saying “I saw a republican watch this once so if you watched it there’s still some chance you’ll engage with this right wing content.”

I think it pushes it so heavily because it’s a gold mine (to the algorithm) since content by those channels is so heavily consumed.

I would rather say we should make it illegal to do things that cause an inordinate amount of suffering to animals. I would prefer not to kill the dog either, but since most people in this thread seem to believe a vegan diet with supplements is impossible for carnivore pets, what other option is there?

Personally I see some difference between a dog and a human just as I see a difference between an ant and a dog, probably based on how consciously aware they are. Obviously I would hope to have legal or social consequences for people who eat meat. However If I had someone who would pay someone else to torture 1 animal a day, and then eat it, meaning ~30,000 animals would be tortured throughout their life, and I have no way to make them stop besides killing them, what is your proposed solution? I want to hear the non utilitarian answer to this problem, in this hypothetical where killing them is the only way to stop the behavior.

The most “moral” thing to do would be for vegans to make it impossible for factory farming to exist, but veganism is still a minority and doesn’t have that kind of power. You’ve baked in that the only options are “kill people who eat meat” or “do nothing.” In a situation where all humans were strict carnivores, that’s a much harder question. Should someone be allowed to exist when their existence relies on the suffering of others? I don’t know and luckily I don’t have to know because we can stop factory farming without killing anyone, and put pets on a maybe-suboptimal-requires-monitoring “abusive” diet, rather than factory farming millions of animals for them.

e: this is basically just a more complicated version of the trolley problem, would you kill one person to save 4 others? what about kill one person to save 200 animals? I guess if you don’t value animals at all, you would never kill the person. For me, yes at some point there would be a limit, where that is it’s hard to answer.

Yeah I think it’s just some people are not trying to “communicate” rather they’re just doing it because it’s fun for them (and some others). Sort of the “talking because they like to talk.” I used to also be pretty annoyed by it but I had a friend use them all the time and sort of just got used to it. Even if it did still annoy me I don’t like to ruin someone’s fun, so I’ll just be a bit mad and carry on (and then complain to other people it annoys)

Is this meant to prove or disprove it?

There are some commercial vegan diets available which have synthetically made nutrients to replace those found only in animal based ingredients.

There may also be some that do not meet the safety and nutritional standards of other types of food. Manufacturers should provide information to show it is nutritionally complete and balanced. This information can be difficult to find and understand, so it’s important to speak with your vet for advice too.

If you want a real answer, ethically you should not have gotten a carnivore in the first place and reduce the demand for carnivore pets. After that it’s just a math problem, how many factory farmed animals will that dog eat throughout it’s life? You won’t like this answer, but what’s more humane, euthanasia of 1 dog, or factory farming of ~4 animals (who had lives anywhere from constant suffering to just slightly suffering) throughout it’s lifespan.

The point of the emoji at the end was to “add some more feeling/fun to text content,” like if I ended a comment with “I couldn’t stop smiling while writing this.” It’s irrelevant but it changes the flavor of the text.

Besides that, many lemmy users are on the spectrum and will read “Donald Trump is known for his great border policies” in a comment that it’s clear they’re joking, and they will still have -5 score and comments arguing with them until the poster says “it was a joke.” Compare that to “Donald Trump is known for his great border policies 🤡” or 🙄 or 💀 depending on how obvious you want to be. It’s just a tool that can be misused or annoying like anything else.

well yeah if the person writes 😪😔🤥 it’s not clear what they mean, but this poster gave an example sentence that’s pretty unambiguous, and is using the emoji as a tool to make it even more unambiguous, are they not? 🤔

Just feels unfair to lump 🗨💣💨🤳 style emoji usage with “let me put 😆 to make it more clear this is a joke” 🥺 (also sometimes it’s just what the writer is feeling, rather than trying to be clear communication)

I can think of a couple situations, one being if you live in a place where abortion is illegal and you’re talking to someone else/someone who knows someone who wants to get one. Doesn’t matter if you did nothing illegal but now you’ve likely gotten them in hot water. Another is if you’ve loaded a website that hosted something illegal unintentionally, now you have to explain why that’s in your cache/history/whatever (lemmy had a big problem with CSAM being spammed on some instances). Innocent people get put on trial/sent to prison for weak evidence, and your phone is an immense amount of information for the cops to look through and see if they can make anything fit.