Senal

Ah, so it's a mutual block but initiated from one side.

Thanks.

Is...that not what's supposed to happen?

I don't have any other socials so I'm not too up on what the standards are.

How so?

IIRC licensing monopolies and capitalist bullshit.

old link but still : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26143407

I'm tempted to say Abed from community (the TV show) the representation could be considered subjectively accurate.

The social situations are a bit contrived though, given it's focus as a comedy, so it may not be useful as a representation of real life interactions.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149

Julie d'Aubigny

Do note that religion only ever seems to be a problem when it’s conservative or authoritarian, a pattern that holds for many things outside of religion as well.

That's disingenuous at best.

Religion is a problem when it used to push principles on to other people ( specifically when those principles are harmful and unwelcome ), conservative and authoritarian principles happen to lend themselves to this kind of behaviour quite readily which is why you see criticism aimed at those types of religions.

and with startling consistency.

Perhaps it might be worth looking in to why this consistency exists.

It seems like you don't quite understand how federated services work.

Here's a quick primer on how you can improve your federated internet experience.

• You can block individual users
  • That will remove posts by them from your feed.
  • All future and historical posts by them will also be removed from your vision.
• If you feel like a community as a whole is allowing behaviour you disagree with you can block that entire community
  • You also have the option of creating your own space with a similar theme, a space that you can police in exactly the way you prefer. ( for example "Video No Politics" )
• In the possible case of disliking the content and/or moderation of an entire instance...you guessed it, you can block that also.
  • Creating your own instance is also a possibility, it can be a bit involved but is certainly possible.
  • Then you have all the control, you can invite your friends, success.

You could also continue to complain about things you can easily fix, that is also an option.

"Their upvote ratio is too damn high", is an instant classic btw.

Given your replies so far you seem to be looking for something a bit less echo-chambery (or as i suspect a chamber where the echoes are more to your liking)

Luckily this is entirely possible and relatively easily achievable, have fun.

I think knowing that these voters base their position on abortion on the belief that it is murder hurts your position so it’s better not to answer. Or you just don’t know them that well and really have no idea.

I mean, i've no idea because it's never happened, you also have no idea.

You can assure me it's true all you want, your assurances mean nothing to me if they don't make any sense.

The argument that these voters’ position on abortion (and therefore their votes) are based on race necessarily requires that they are aware of the statistics.

It does not, at all.

A decision can easily be based on a belief, an understanding of relevant statistical values isn't required.

If the claim is they vote this way because it disproportionately harms minorities, how do they know it disproportionately harms minorities?

That's not the claim, the claim is "Some people vote this way , wholly or partially because they think it disproportionately harms minorities"

They probably don't know , they may think it does, or hope it does, or not care at all either way.

There are of course people who are voting solely on their opinion of "baby murder is bad", nobody is or has been arguing otherwise.

You are arguing race isn't a factor, i am arguing that that's an impossible position to defend and no "All the people i know aren't racist" doesn't count as a valid defense.

But I’m glad we agree that they do not know that.

Common ground is a good basis for understanding.

Are you under the impression their position toward abortion would be different if the entire state or country were 100% white? I assure you it would not be. And if that’s true, it cannot be based on race.

I've no idea, all i was stating is that dismissing race as a part of the decision making process (consciously or unconsciously) in a place known for outcomes based on race could be considered dumbing down the argument.

What’s more is this argument that their position on abortion is informed by statistics is laughable. These are low information voters. You seriously think they even know the stats? Why in the world would anyone think that?

Entirely laughable, which is why nobody has claimed this.

I was saying these people are what makes up the statistics.

As an entirely made up example:

"10% of the population don't like the taste of potatoes" doesn't mean 10% of the population base their decisions about eating fries on reading the statistics.

claims such as "All the people i know like potatoes , so potato preference can't possibly be related to the amount of fries eaten" just doesnt make any sense.

and to be clear I'm not claiming all positions are race based, just that it's enough of a factor that pretending it doesn't have any impact at all is some gold medal mental gymnastics.

I grew up in Texas in a deep red county.

In a country notorious for it's systemic and institutionalized racism, you grew up in a section that votes predominantly for the party that is notoriously racist ( In general, not in comparison to any other party ) and would claim that race has no part in a decision that is known to have racial divides in applicability.

That might be the greatest feat of mental gymnastics i've ever seen, truly.

On the off-chance you genuinely mean what you say:

That you and the people you know don't care about race is laudable, but it doesn't seem to be broadly applicable to the rest of the state or country ( and in the case of republicans their party )