No, when you spread disparaging lies about someone it only makes their critics look less trustworthy in the future. It’s like the boy who cried wolf.

Fake news is the tool of the enemy. You don’t need it when there is plenty of truth available as ammunition.

This feels like it could be turned into a poem without too much adjustment

Providing a counterexample to a claim is not whataboutism.

Whataboutism involves derailing a conversation with an ad-hominem to avoid addressing someone’s argument, like what you just did.

People have their own standards for upvoting and downvoting, but I wouldn’t say it’s trivial. Nearly everyone would intuitively agree “I think more people should see this” is a reason to upvote and vice versa and so act accordingly.

With a controversial default sorting order, you would be incentivised to downvote a popular, quality comment and also downvote unpopular spam to affect visibility appropriately. The difference between high updates and downvotes disappears. The current default sorting order doesn’t incentivise changing your vote based on a comment’s current score to influence its visibility, which is nicer.

Yeah, and you can argue with them. That doesn’t mean controversial comments should be assumed to be higher quality than those with widespread support by default.

People despawn when you leave to save resources. It’s dead when you’re not around.

Yeah it’s not supported for my system so I can’t even launch it. But I was watching some friends stream it and it crashed for three out of four of them within two games. I don’t think any of us will be getting it after release.

I also read it. Saying it writes it off might be a slight overstatement, but it doesn’t accept trauma as valid justification for not doing something you are otherwise capable of. It generally treats it as a comforting lie to avoid recognizing something one doesn’t want to confront about oneself.

That is its most controversial claim, and with our modern understanding of things like PTSD it would certainly need to at least yield a lot of ground. I also remember it advised parents to not really praise or scold children in a way that passed authoritative judgement. Even as someone who thinks parents should generally trust kids to make their own choices more, that seems hard in practice and not likely to benefit a child depending on feedback from parents.

But I would still recommend it with the caveat that you are free to disagree with any of its claims. It’s overall very empowering and pushes the idea that someone’s worth is not dependent on the evaluation of others. It tries to convince the reader that they are capable of changing things they don’t like about themself rather than being deterministically fated to it like Freud might have you believe. With the amount of hopelessness people face now, it’s probably more relevant today than during Adler’s life.

I suppose you might also leave trash at your seat in a movie theater or restaurant. After all, cleaning up is someone else’s job and you don’t even work there. Plus, you can pat yourself on the back for contributing to that person’s job security with your added burden like some of the people here.

The NYT has also published many pieces demonizing Palestinians and downplaying Israeli war crimes. It even helped Israeli intelligence assets spread allegations about sexual violence on October 7 that couldn’t be verified by other Journalists, human rights groups or the UN, but helped strongly in distracting from well documented and evidenced sexual violence by Israelis against Palestinians they have taken hostage.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say with “couldn’t be verified by other journalists”. The specific event discussed at the start of that section concerns an alleged rape that was not witnessed by a NYT reporter presonally. The evidence for it wasn’t believed by some of her family, at least initially. That unfortunately seems fairly common for rape victims. Other descriptions about what happened that day were also from witness testimony, so it makes sense that details would disagree. It’s expected to be fairly unreliable as evidence, but not to the extent it shouldn’t be reported on.

Do you consider reports of sexual violence to be Israeli propaganda? Because while Hamas has denied that its fighters committed any sexual assaults, the UN has reported there was “a pattern indicative of sexual violence by Palestinian forces during the attack”. The unverified part of the claim by Israel is not that it happened, but whether it was actually ordered by Hamas rather than just being opportunistic individuals. For the record, the UN has similarly reported Israeli forces doing the same to Palestinians with at least implicit encouragement from leadership following Oct. 7.

The NYT published nearly 1200 stories on the holocaust during WWII, it just was rarely on the front page. They should have emphasized it more, but that’s hardly “siding with the Nazis”. You are free to criticize them for not doing enough at the time but you could say the same thing about the world as a whole.

Probably not, but we still call non-dairy substitutes “milk” other than some countries that regulate the label. Language tends to go by what it resembles rather than the process to generate it.

You got me wondering, and it seems like opinion is mixed among US adults

Overall, we saw mixed emotions around the rise of AI. 39% of Americans feel positive about AI while 20% feel negative. The most commonly expressed emotion was curiosity, followed by interest and worry.

It seems to hold true internationally too

People are most likely to say they are concerned (32%), curious (30%), and hopeful (27%) about artificial intelligence. … 24% of respondents said AI will make our lives better. 41% of respondents think AI will make our lives both better and worse. Only 10% of respondents think AI will only make our lives worse

I think that’s fairly common but not legally required, at least on a federal level.

more like wokémon

We live in a society

Well I was trying to say something like “slightly a victim” but it didn’t sound right. So I thought saying they suffered a small injustice was close enough

You can also get carrots and potatoes from zombie drops.

Ban the people obfuscating. Don’t assume guilt based on gender.

Being discriminated from a community based on gender is a small injustice, but it is an injustice nonetheless. At the very least, it’s a policy choice worthy of discussion.

If it’s predominantly the men making shit comments, it should be easy enough to identify and ban them. Assuming they will make a bad comment based on them being a man is simply bad moderation.