You’re doing it backwards. Don’t put your stuff out there to just anyone, like on Facebook or whatever. Find the communities around your hobbies and put your stuff out to them. Be selective online, because the signal to noise ratio is very very bad these days.
I dont get anything but Lemmy. Its the better Reddit, which I also like. Kinda only-people-of-same-interest but also more open, so new ones can join easily
The only thing that bothers me about terms like “trans rights”, “women rights”, … is that there should be no need to prefix “rights” with anything but “human”. And human rights should apply to all humans indiscriminately, obviating the need to label any subset of human rights that shouldn’t exist. In my book, the slice of bread should read:
Humans have human rights. Trans people are humans.
And in a better world every bit of that should be so obvious that it wouldn’t need mentioning at all.
That’s the whole reason trans rights, women rights and so on are talked about. Some people need a constant reminder that trans people are human, women are human and all the other minority groups are human as well. Because somehow that’s not obvious to them.
That stance is fair enough. Though I’d like to point out that language can shape perception. And using terms like “trans rights” suggests that trans people are sufficiently different from “normal” humans that they require special rights. But, in my humble opinion, it would be so easy to formulate human/basic rights in a way that no subset specific rights are required, that the entire notion of X rights seems alien to me. Let’s assume we have four tiers of laws (true for some nations): constitutional law, common law, policy, and judicial precedence. Imagine the following subset of constitutional law:
Constitutional law applies to all humans residing in the jurisdiction of the nation.
Nobody has a right for unhurt feelings.
Nobody shall perform an act solely for the purpose of hurting someone else’s feelings.
Everybody has a right for individual bodily autonomy.
There’s no mention of race, religion, gender, … Yet, I’d argue that, for example, trans people are fully covered and protected by the wording. Required exceptions, for example limited accountability for minors, can easily be put into common law. If it becomes evident that some minority is factually disadvantaged, that could be addressed in policy without any need to extend the law because that is neutral and all-encompassing.
I feel like “we” (politicians/societies) are talking way too much about special laws for trans people, women, … when we should fix the root causes of overly specific laws/constitutions.
TL;DR: humans are humans, and imho human law should be for all humans and avoid special treatment of any subset, but be worded in a way that any special need is met as best as possible.
Nah, exactly 50% “of the world” is closer to Georgia than Georgia because the dividing line forms two perfect hemispheres. It just doesn’t seem like it because more of the world’s land area is closer to Georgia.
The fact that the map fails to color in the oceans doesn’t help, of course.
I’m just as annoyed by the overuse of the Mercator projection as the next guy, but no, I don’t think we can blame it in this particular instance. Consider the similar case of a day/night map, which pretty clearly reads as 50/50 even when it’s Mercator:
It’s not niche! It only came out a couple years ago!
…
Fuck me running. There are people, adults with jobs who can drink, who were in kindergarten when this song was released. There are probably teenagers reading this comment right now who weren’t even born yet.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.