Lemmy seems to have a pretty high number of non-native English speakers, particularly Germans and other Europeans. I think this leads to people making seemingly simple grammar mistakes while also appearing to know English well.

Plus, American schools have completely gone to shit, so I’m sure that doesn’t help either.

Yep, a seedbox is also a great solution. VPN’s and seedboxes are like airbags—you probably don’t need them most of the time, but you will be very glad you had them when you do.

I wouldn’t worry about it too much in Mexico—I go there all the time and find them to be reasonable about law enforcement. They have bigger fish to fry than pirates. Enjoy the great food and cool street performers—it is an amazing country that is massively misrepresented in a lot of the world.

That said—get a VPN. It’s a good idea in general.

BUT WHAT IF…

Human will is an expression of god’s will, thus exercising free will is, in fact, realizing god’s will, and only actions that occur due to malady or coercion are corrupted, even though they are themselves attempts at will expression.

Under that model, free will and god’s will can coexist, the horrors of existence don’t have to be god’s fault, and self improvement becomes a refinement process so that the expression of will can be more easily completed.

I should be pope. /s

Wait, people are being enjoyed out there?

Not saying it’s right, saying it is what it is.

That’s why it is primarily used by black people in America—the word was used against them and now they are setting the terms for its future use. Just because it makes some people uncomfortable, that doesn’t mean it is ok for a white person to try to control how it is used, just like it wasn’t ok for a white person to make it a slur against blacks. The word is under new management now.

And it sure does add a ring to rap songs.

It pulls a synonym—what’s the big deal?

I need a bigger nerd than me to explain how much Apple users need to worry about this.

The solution to world problems is to dress like it’s the 1970’s.

To everyone who hasn’t read the article, this kind of seems like nothing major to me. Before I continue, I want to say that I don’t know much about Dawkins’ stance on trans rights, so I’m just going exclusively off of what I read in this article. If someone knows something I don’t, please forgive my ignorance.

Basically, the freedom from religion foundation published a paper saying that they can’t define what a woman is. Another author published a rebuttal that was saying that, while that may be true for the psychological definition of a woman, the biological definition of one can be quantified by the presence of specific biological traits.

The freedom from religion foundation then retracted that article without telling the author that they were going to do so, and issued a statement saying that a woman is whatever she says she is. They seemingly ignored the intent of the article, making the author look like a bigot even though he expressly said he didn’t have any qualms with the LGBTQ+ community, and was only speaking about biology.

Dawkins found the retraction to be unprofessional, and then chose to withdraw from the board of that organization. It seems like it had less to do with a personal opinion about trans people, and more to do with the professional standards of an organization.

For the record, I support trans people and their rights, I’m just relaying what I got from this article since a lot of people here expressed that they would not read it.