Libra00

If you want a more egalitarian workplace I’m afraid the only solution is to remove the capitalists siphoning off the surplus value created by the labor of the workers. Co-ops are one way to do this on the small scale, but especially in the US they will have a hard time competing with giant corporations which is why they aren’t common anymore: they’ve largely been driven out of most markets by much larger entities.

I mean everybody has their own experience so I’m not gonna tell you you’re wrong, but that’s not been my experience.

I spent more than 10 years playing text-based roleplaying games (MUSHes) from like ~1993 on, and even people who had multiple scenes a day that were well beyond short story length were frequently just god-awful at spelling. I had a lot of bad habits I picked up from back then that I’ve had to break, some of which (misspelling ‘separate’ as ‘seperate’, f.ex) that still get me sometimes. So at the very least there has been no shortage of awful spelling in the early days of the internet.

By the same token I now spend at least an hour or two a day reading lemmy, reddit, etc and usually several more playing video games where I should’ve been exposed to all this awful typing going on and I have not noticed an increase, much less one worthy of capital letters.

So, I’m not saying it’s impossible, just that as someone who has spent a significant portion of their life reading text on the internet it doesn’t seem likely to me.

Welp, time to delete that shit and find replacements. Notepad++ is a solid upgrade over notepad, there must be something similar for paint that doesn’t have a steep learning curve?

That’s a fair point, I was just wondering if they had a specific theory as to why it suddenly changed since they were asserting that it had.

Ah, fair enough. My bad for assuming.

My guess is it’s just the frequency illusion, because they’re also super common among Americans who have only ever spoken English from birth. My theory is that these types of misspellings (like ‘itsplain’ instead of ‘explain’) are from folks who don’t read a lot and therefore seem to be guessing on spelling based on what they’ve (mis)heard rather than having seen it on the page/screen enough to notice the correct spelling.

What possible cause could there be for lots of people to suddenly start spelling worse? Wait, this isn’t another of those ‘smart phones are making us dumb!’ posts is it? Cause people have said that about pretty much every invention since the printing press. It’s probably just the frequency illusion, where you notice something for no particular reason and then start seeing it everywhere, especially if you’re only noticing changes over the period of a few months. Spelling was every bit as bad in 1995 as it is in 2025. Maybe worse due to the lack of access to spell-checking, auto-correct, online dictionaries, etc, and you can notice it especially in people who don’t read much (which is how you get spellings like ‘itsplain’ instead of ‘explain’, it seems like they’re guessing based on what they’ve (mis)heard instead of seeing it on the page/screen) even long before smart phones were a thing.

You are going crazy. I’ve been on the internet since like 1992 and have spent many, many years reading forums and playing text-based role playing games, and this is very not new. Spelling has always been awful because the internet isn’t a formal medium where that stuff matters to most people. If anything it’s probably gotten better since the advent of smart phones with built in auto-correct.

Even as someone who is on the internet and watches streams everyday, do you recognize every streamer’s face? Of course not, just the ones you watch. There are people who don’t watch any of them (I’m one of them) and so only know about a few because they see clips of or references to them once in a while or w/e. I could deliver doordash to 100 different streamers every day and it’d probably be weeks or months before I recognized one, and I’m online pretty much nonstop so I have a lot more exposure than most people who don’t watch them.

Because the left sees the left/right divide as fundamentally being about opposition to/support for capitalism, with the former being the defining feature of leftism and the latter of liberalism (which, from the international perspective, includes conservatives.) Anyone who isn’t opposed to capitalism - like ‘left-wing’ parties that advocate for reforming or regulating capitalism instead of replacing it - are not leftist. In fact, they often act as a pressure valve for anti-capitalist sentiment within society that channels people who might otherwise oppose it into less-radical reformist parties instead of moving on to find true anti-capitalist parties as they might otherwise have. Not to mention there’s a pretty well-established historical trend of ‘left-wing’ parties appeasing or even outright enabling fascism when things get bad in capitalist economies, so it’s hard to argue that they’re even nominally left-leaning.

The US democratic party is, by the international standard (the US defines things a bit differently), a centrist party at best, and honestly probably more like center-right.

I don’t doubt that it’s possible, but it would cost $7,000 or some shit.

Huh, I haven’t played Prince of Persia since the original on an Apple IIe. Color me curious.

I am extremely left-wing, so probably skew the average all by myself. :P

LOL, yup, this.

deleted by creator

That… really depends on your politics. It could range from ‘There are bad people who want to hurt us’ to ‘we are bad people who hurt people and sometimes they decide to try to hurt us back.’

This is not a binary in my mind, it’s kind of a spectrum. The guy standing between me and the door when I decide it’s time for me to leave is definitely on the chopping block, but also there’s some aiding-and-abetting that must be considered. Maybe that guy has the key to the door, but someone else just chained me to a pipe once I was already in the locked room, and I’m afraid that someone else is in the line of fire too. And maybe there’s a third guy who did the actual kidnapping but didn’t contribute to chaining me up or locking me in, if the opportunity presents I would give some pretty serious thought to putting him on the list as well. And so on. There’s a point at which it is no longer reasonable of course; the guy who drove the van I was kidnapped in but otherwise didn’t participate is probably safe, for example. But also we can get into credible non-direct or non-immediate threats, as you say: the guy who killed 15 teenage girls is sitting in his van in front of your house watching your teenage daughter, are you just gonna lock the door at night and hope he finds someone else? I agree that that’s debatable, but my overall point here is that the lines aren’t nearly as clear as you make them out to be.

Now personally nothing would make me happier than to live out the rest of my life without having to even threaten anyone else’s, for obvious (and some not-so-obvious) reasons, but there’s a line somewhere that if crossed could convince me to reluctantly set that deeply sincere hope aside temporarily.

To me, you’ve moved beyond arguable necessity and into opinion

All morality is opinion; there is no objective moral truth, so this was always a matter of opinion. The fact that you don’t recognize that is kind of concerning to me, it suggests that you believe there is an absolute moral truth, and folks who believe that sort of thing tend to have some pretty kooky ideas about individual agency and shit. Moral certainty is the currency of zealots, and it’s hard to imagine anyone who has done more harm than those zealots who are utterly certain that they’re right (or, worse, that they have some deity on their side.)

Por que no los dos? This isn’t a pick-one situation, it’s a both situation.

Mostly seems like ‘whine a lot about how little power we have to stop the fascism that we have appeased for years’ these days…

These are about two different statements.

The first was about your statement re:direct threat, and I’m glad we agree there.

The second was about your final statement, asserting that there are no other cases where ending a sentient life was a lesser wrong. I don’t think it has to be a direct threat, nor does have to be measurable (in whatever way threats might be measured, iono), I think it just has to be some kind of threat to your life or well-being. So I was disagreeing because there is a pretty broad range of circumstances in which I think it is acceptable to end another sentient life.