• 0 Posts
  • 99 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle

  • “we need more resources” is bounded by the rate at which you can incorporate new teams members without absolutely destroying your productivity, or having a bunch of untrained fools running around breaking things (of course the later is standard at many places already, so I guess it doesn’t always matter).

    The right answer is usually : “No”. Or at least “Prioritize”. Or “This is what we need to get it done” at which point they might start to get software takes time to make decently, and they don’t want software that doesn’t work decently in the first place.






  • SolarMech@slrpnk.nettoPeople Twitter@sh.itjust.worksCognitive dissonance
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    If you do it it’s not ok and you should feel guilty all of your life. But if we did it it’s totally ok.

    Actually you should still feel guilty all of your life because one of your ancestors sinned or something. And I’ve made you a sinner by definition.

    – God, priests and other representatives of God, probably.



  • This stuff depends on context.

    If it’s the first time someone is told this, sure. If someone is asking not to be constantly harassed for having done this once, then that person is right. Once they’ve been told once, it’s plenty if education is the goal. If the person knows to tell you not to tell them that, they’ve been told once. If someone is asking that the guy who leaked the nudes be acted against, then that person is right. If someone is excusing shitting behavior because the victim should have protected themselves better, they are blaming the victim, shame on them.




  • SolarMech@slrpnk.nettoComic Strips@lemmy.worldXXX
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Since you seem to be surprised people got offended or hurt, I will try to decode this interaction for you. Based on seeing essentially this discussion online over and over again.

    I mean my take on this is the original post is essentially saying :

    "Please be understanding of women turning you down in less than ideal ways (ie: Ghosting, etc.), they are afraid for their safety because they keep hearing stories of violence from men angry that women did not do what they wanted them to do. "

    Then you essentially say :

    “There are many good men too”. It’s also very easy to read into what you say “And we should be talking about how they don’t get talked about or remembered” even if you didn’t mean to say it that way

    This is besides the point. It indicates that you either did not decode the original message right or lack empathy for the situation. I mean, it’s very likely the first, but the second is why people can get angry at a reaction like this. If you want to start a discussion on a different topic, why does it need to be in this thread?

    What we haven’t even mentioned

    There are a LOT of things we haven’t mentioned. I don’t understand why you feel the need to change the topic a second time in a thread asking for empathy.








  • Exactly. Religions that survive and get promoted are the ones that can thrive in the society they are living in, and that generally requires fitting into the political world of that society.

    Religions that criticize the powers that be either overthrow them then become complicit with the new leaders over time, or they get marginalized. Priests had to deal with kings, one way or another.


  • SolarMech@slrpnk.nettoComic Strips@lemmy.worldWhy so sad?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Arguments on purity bore me, one way or the other.

    Less ecological impact is better than more ecological impact. Less suffering is better than more suffering. Cheaper food is better than more expensive food. Somewhat healthy diet is better than a diet Lancet is warning you about (ie: too much meat, especially red meat) Using less resources to feed more people is better than using more resources to feed fewer.

    Every step from a modern western diet with way too much meat (the one Lancet warns about) to something more reasonable brings benefit basically in relation to how much meat you cut. You can argue that we can’t reach the absolute, but it strictly does not matter. If you try to reduce meat and succeed as much as you reasonably can, things improve. You don’t have to be a part of this, but surely you realize this is the case?