You can run AI without causing environmental problems just like you can drive cars without burning fossil fuels and you can have industrial production without creating pollutants.

All of that just cuts into the profits though.

The same way someone saying that you would look better without glasses, or would look better with short hair, or would look better if you worked out more is all belittling.

You are trivializing the choices or non choices a person made. You are implying that the way a person looks is in some way wrong or could be better, that they are less than.

My experience is that you would come off as a lot more approachable online if you used less words. You might think that using all those words covers up your flaws but I think you could use a lot less words and be your authentic self and people would like being around you more.

What do any of those things have to do with the conversation. They didnt understand why men sharing an opinion about women’s makeup was a problem. I explained my view of it.

Life is unfair and people can be mean isn’t a justification its just whataboutism cope. Rather than actually letting people consider that maybe their behavior has hurt people you are helping them justify it because people maybe somewhere other people were mean to some other person probably.

Sharing your opinions of how others chose to dress or act is weird unless you are doing it to influence others. Trying to influence people by belittling them is rude.

You could be saying it about how someone dresses, or dances, or what bike they chose to ride.

It is unfortunate that men belittling women about their makeup is so pervasive in our culture that after at least three generations of people highlighting how hurtful it is, people still think their right to state their opinion of random people is more important than people’s right to go through their day without being accosted.

Frakkin toasters man

When one divorced parent gets their toddler prescribed Adderall without the other parent being informed. AAP recommends against it for ages 3 (not 2 but 3) to 5 but it is allowed.

I’m not saying I even have an opinion on this, but I do think if someone said they think 3 is too young to take Adderall I think that doesn’t automatically tell me they are anti medicine or a bad person.

What does minorities have to do with this?

Armenian’s were a majority. The Fur people of Darfur are a majority in their region. Palestinians are a majority.

Genocide is a method often used in converting a majority to a minority.

I agree with your endpoint that those people don’t care, but I think if you told someone like that that they don’t care about minorities I think you would be confirming their thoughts not convincing them away from it.

Because I don’t think a 2 year old should be given Adderall without a parent knowing?

I personally am pretty open minded about these things, I was able to get birth control with my partner when I was 15 without her Catholic parents knowing. That was very important, but I recognize that if we were 10 it maybe becomes a different conversation involving parents.

You might say a parent could be included but you also have cases of divorced parents where one parent is for and another is against and there is a question of if the childs opinions are theirs or their parents. What age should the child be able to make the call? 15? 10? 5?

You’ve got a bunch of nutjobs that will turn that phrasing into a white genocide conversation is the problem.

The second part of that is that genocide is a subjective term due to classification of ethnic groups being subjective.

Honestly this well encapsulates the problem I tend to have aligning on goals with other progressives and some liberals. Every time folks try to simplify something as complex as genocide down to a yes or no question it means they are already invalidating the majority of positions and forcing a conversation of agree with me or call me wrong. That isn’t how it works, that isn’t how discussion and debate work. Forcing people into Yes/No thinking doesn’t lead to progress, asking for people to think critically does.

The reasonable debate is at what age is that allowed. I do not think that has an easy answer other than legal age of majority for the country you are a citizen of. I think that the problem is there are harder answers than that worth seriously considering.

I can’t imagine thinking any medical procedure has a simple answer, especially anything that permanently alters you.

Medical professionals are people, sometimes they make the right choice, sometimes the wrong choice. There are people who shop for the wrong answer, and also people who get the wrong answer and live in suffering. It is important to question things and have a discourse.

If my 16 year old came to me and asked to have their hearing removed as a solution to their mispohonia and that their therapist agrees and they found a surgeon… I don’t think I could just jump on board with that call.

Genocide is a term that is both over and under used. There are currently about six genocides ongoing. I don’t see the point in trying to call someone out on it because no one is actually doing anything for or against it outside of a very small number of people.

If someone asks me if I’m anti genocide I assume they mean something they specifically consider a genocide and they are trying to use this as bait to get me to out myself in some way. They don’t actually expect I’m personally participating or countering it in any way.

Trans rights also is a loaded term now because there are a LOT of individual rights Trans people are needing to fight for all in parallel. It’s better to be specific.

Sure someone who says they are against trans people is awful, but I find folks set the bar in different places and use that to start an argument. The easiest example is, what age should someone be allowed to transition which is an intensely challenging question to answer even on a medical level.

Year of the Linux desktop pushed out a year due to Linux infighting and intolerable advocates for the 33rd year. Clearly the fault of the other distros as I use Arch.

Would you rather our current administration make their decisions by using the lowest bidder LLM, or their own brains?

I had to check what cabinet position he held and was shocked he wasn’t in there. He seems like he has all the qualifications they look for.

There is also the legality of it and if it is treasonous. The one person at least the senators have some saftey nets from the Supreme Court but they still are at risk here.

I use far far less if I use a very small amount twice rather than a lot once. The shampoo will mix with oils in your hair and when you wash once you just keep rubbing the oil and detergent mix back onto yourself. Using a small amount and rinsing it off will make it function far better.

The only people who progressives lose to are the Democrats. Even in cases where they win a primary they get kneecapped by the DNC. Most US progressives come in with wild ideas like making the rich pay things instead of poor people. Making sure water is clean. Keeping the government out of our bedrooms. Governing rather than blustering. They also tend to be relatable as most have worked at least one real job in their life.

Why is your hobby more important than their hobby?