Moondira
-
Posts
227 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Moondira
-
-
4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:10 minutes ago, Moondira said:
The Totalitarian State manifests when the dominators take over and punish the out-groups they deem unfit. You have the dynamic reversed. A diverse and inclusive world in real life will produce an inclusive virtual world.
Luna?
Luna is the Spanish word for moon, yes.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Codex Alpha said:4 minutes ago, Moondira said:
The Totalitarian State manifests when the dominators take over and punish the out-groups they deem unfit. You have the dynamic reversed. A diverse and inclusive world in real life will produce an inclusive virtual world.
Yet that is usually not the result as observed and experienced. Maybe for YOU, but such movements are actually all about EXCLUDING others as a rule - who don't conform to their vision.
What do you mean by not conforming to their vision?
A vision of everyone (no matter race, sexual orientation or gender, or financial status) being treated with respect? Why would you not conform to such a vision?
We definitely need this vision in all worlds, including virtual ones.
-
1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:
The Rise of Victimhood Culture It's funny how one can notice a change in society, how much of a difference it makes in one's own reality and existence, and not really knowing what to call it, then come up with a relevant term for it, then find someone wrote a pertinent book on it.
it really encapsulates what happens online and in real-world situations from home to school to workplace. In the end it just leads to the rise of the Nanny State - otherwise known as the Totalitarian State.
"We're going to force you to be polite!"
The Totalitarian State manifests when the dominators take over and punish the out-groups they deem unfit. You have the dynamic reversed. A diverse and inclusive world in real life will produce an inclusive virtual world.
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:
And to pick the most heavily reported one ... the Biden's administrations "Disinformation Governance Board" is going to be headed by a person who literally claimed that the now confirmed-by-the-New-York-Times Hunter Biden laptop was a "Trump campaign product" and that it was "a Russian influence op".
That same person was very impressed by the now completely discredited Steele Dossier.
That person is a partisan political hack.
Maybe where you got your information to decide the above is the actual side where the political hacking is occurring.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:
Long time Twitter user ... it's an absolute unsafe unmitigated s-hole.
It's flooded with bots, interest managed accounts and actual nazis (not hyperbole). There are complex and deeply coded sub cultures that evade moderation (eg 🧦 is a fascist white supremacist calling card - Socks -> SS)
It's engineered to be a sprawling culture war battle ground. On purpose. The platform depends on this mechanic for it's survival.
Twitter do have a lot of rules, but they are enforced selectively if at all. Repubs complain about getting "silenced" a lot , but in general Twitter are far more likely to let them break the rules as it's "in the public interest".
The far-right in the States are jumping for joy over this Twitter takeover. If that isn't enough to give one pause I don't know what would be.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:
We've already discussed this ... but the topic (if not the forums) was rolled back. Twice.
No 'authority' is acceptable when it comes to determining truth.
Every government on the planet has, at one time or another, been found to be corrupt and/or breaking their own laws. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I'm not saying that every government today is corrupt, but I'd be willing to bet a significant chunk of change that there isn't a single government today that doesn't have corruption at some level.
Now we're seeing those same governments creating departments to "combat misinformation".
And to pick the most heavily reported one ... the Biden's administrations "Disinformation Governance Board" is going to be headed by a person who literally claimed that the now confirmed-by-the-New-York-Times Hunter Biden laptop was a "Trump campaign product" and that it was "a Russian influence op".
That same person was very impressed by the now completely discredited Steele Dossier.
That person is a partisan political hack.
And THAT person is going to be in charge of deciding what is and what isn't the truth.
Even though that person, in the past (while Trump was President) said "I would never want to see our executive branch have that sort of power" about the very job she has just accepted.
That may work for you right now.
But will it work for you when the other side are in power and a partisan political hack who has very different opinions to you gets to determine what is misinformation and what is not?
No government, or any other organisation for that matter, is sufficiently trustworthy to be given the power to determine what is true and what is not.
Why are you, as an Australian, so obsessed with American politics? I notice that the Australian YouTube news channel Sky News is as well. And our far-right Fox news channel here always cites them.
I guess I'm asking, is this a thing in Australia?
-
1
-
-
Dear Heavenly Father,
Please give me the strength to calmly close my laptop and prepare for sleep, so as not to be suspended from the forum tonight.
Amen
-
4
-
1
-
-
So can a man be a "Karen" ?
-
1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:
Who knows what it is going to look like Theresa. I don't, I suspect you don't and I doubt the other poster does either.
Hey I heard that before with the man who shall not be named but has been known to tint orange. Let's just give him a chance and see how it goes, they said. My grandmother had wise words of advice to me, that when people show you who they are believe them! So I already know what it's going to look like.
-
2
-
-
39 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:
Small wonder some get a little exasperated with it even if they support Trans people.
You're whining about stuff that seldom exists. I think you just want to whine and argue. So can I call you a Karen?
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:
Articulate and forceful to make sure you get equal treatment? I'm down. Articulate and forceful because you don't like my motorcycle? Shut up, Karen.
That makes sense if you can call a guy that too if he butts into your business and whines. So for guys too?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, AnthonyJoanne said:
Ok - I'm going to make a great deal of effort to comply with the rules and avoid topics which are likely to derail the thread.
There is ample evidence that twitter has, in the past, deliberately and knowingly enabled disinformation. Note that I said disinformation and not misinformation. Disinformation is deliberately spreading false information with the intent to deceive.
I could list a few of those lies that twitter willingly enabled, however they are all what would be classed as 'hot button topics'.
Twitter has frequently suppressed people posting what later turned out to be completely accurate facts. Again ... 'hot button topics'.
I could list a number of other issues, but not surprisingly ... they are all 'hot button topics' and more often than not they are political.
One can, however, search using an unbiased search engine (assuming you've made the effort to find one: Here's a hint, Google and Duck Duck Go are NOT reliable unbiased search engines and openly admit that they are not) and find literally thousands of concrete examples where Twitter displayed blatant bias. Even to the extent of permitting actual death threats which, I'm sure you will agree, violated TOS ... except when it suits the Twitter-approved-narrative.
And yet people are stressing about Elon Musk having control?
It seems to me that the only thing those people are worried about is that Musk won't approve the same narrative.
If Musk forces bias onto twitter (in any way) I'll be just as quick to condemn him. But so far, there is no evidence that he wishes to do so.
He reminds me a lot of Ghandi and I can't wait to see what he will do with Twitter.
-
2
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:
- Really off topic
- Politics are prohibited by the community standards.
- We already had a debate over laugh emojis.
If you really want to have this debate, there is a whole general forum, best of luck.
I have no desire to discuss politics whatsoever. I was only responding to a comment by a poster accusing me of something I was not doing, and then defending myself as to why I said what it did. I have no desire to discuss politics or derail the thread, but I will defend an inaccurate description of me.
Please, consider the topic closed.
-
1
-
Why did you laugh, Persephone? It has me wondering, are you in the States? There are two instances of those overthrowing the government here in the States. The Civil War and the Jan 6 incident at the Capitol. Should I have assumed the Civil War instead?
Pointing this out, and the fact that someone feels we should not call such people names, is revealing in some ways I would imagine.
-
1
-
-
My take on it is people are lazy. Typing takes effort as opposed to spewing thoughts into the air without reflecting.
-
10
-
-
2 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:1 hour ago, Moondira said:
What do you propose as the new names for those who attempted to overthrow our government on Jan 6 after losing the election?
This is completely off-topic, Moondira. As I don't recall seeing you posting other comments on this thread, I assume you're trying to drag off-topic politics into it to try to get it closed. I for one am not taking the bait.
I was responding to Entity who first mentioned terrorists and government overthrowers and how they were being called names unfairly. I was sarcastically replying, "well what exactly should we call them"?
Don't assume things you don't understand.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, entity0x said:
t needs to stop. Just like calling other people names here or using derogatory terms against others is against the TOS and against civil discussion - so should be the framing of other individuals or groups to be 'hostile, aggressive, trolls, brigadiers' (and in recent RL events) 'terrorists, government overthrowers
What do you propose as the new names for those who attempted to overthrow our government on Jan 6 after losing the election?
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Jordan Whitt said:
I wasn't gonna say anything cos whether or not there is a dedicated sub-forum won't affect my life either way, but that comment really burned my britches.
You know why there is "no hetero pride"? Cos we're not allowed to have any! Its "-phobic" or "-ist" to be proud of being white, proud of being hetero, proud of being a woman. So we're not allowed to be proud of who we are.
-
5
-
2
-
-
51 minutes ago, Chris Nova said:
Because people like you literally ignore mother nature and science and falsely claim that every single "way to allow this expression" is 100% accurate. Stop it. Its 2021, try promoting some personal responsibility and then maybe we can finally curb teen pregnancy and abortion rates and lower the rates of kids having kids. They should be focusing on their education, not sex. Thats the target demographic of Planned Parenthood and its a business. And we all know what a business is in the business of: Money.
Uh, people like me? You don't know anything about me and what I believe, yet you are making loads of assumptions. I'm not talking about kids at all. I'm talking about people in committed relationships and how sexual expression is normally a healthy part of such a relationship. Such a couple should be able to use whatever we have in the modern world to plan their family in the way they see fit. If they can't afford an additional child and contraception fails then abortion should be an option for them and not prevented by the state.
The 1st line in your paragraph is so bizarre I can't even imagine what you mean by it. Ignoring mother nature and science?
Personal responsibility? Who says I don't advocate this?
If you want to talk about kids though, good luck on getting them not to be sexual beings at that time in their life.
What does planned parenthood have to do with anything?
-
35 minutes ago, Chris Nova said:
I disagree. Sex is not a requirement for a stable long-lasting romantic relationship.
I didn't say it was a requirement, I said it was a fundamental aspect. And I would never include every single person. But for most people, the physical aspects of a romantic relationship are important and if those needs are not met the relationship fails. You seem to equate sex in a relationship with something bad or superficial, but sex can be deep and meaningful and not superficial at all.
But more importantly and central to this discussion, why in this day and age would we need to limit such a pleasurable and important part of a relationship with abstinence when we have a myriad of ways to allow this expression without having 12 children in the family as was the case in days gone by?
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Chris Nova said:
You’re right. That’s a whole different problem right there. Sex based relationships hardly ever work. That should say something.
Sex is simply a fundamental aspect of romantic relationships. It's something people should be able to enjoy as it brings closeness on all levels. What I just described is far far different from a sex based relationship where 1 is only relating on a superficial level.
-
31 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:
First, a vasectomy doesn't come without health risks. Secondly, if you get a vasectomy it isn't just a quick little procedure to get it reversed. It is a major medical procedure. It's also only 30-70% successful. One form of birth control that is completely without health risks and 100% guaranteed to work is abstinence. If you don't want to be pregnant then don't have sex..Pretty simple actually..
Relationships often break up if they can't have sex. So that's not a practical solution.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Blaise Glendevon said:
I'm not familiar with that website, so I won't click on it. In the US, the best study we have on the subject says that 95% of people who have abortions do not regret them. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/12/abortion-women-do-not-regret-study
And we cannot let edge cases of people who do change the right of bodily autonomy for people with uteruses. Making abortion illegal doesn't actually stop abortions. It makes them deadly for the people who need them.
Damn you're good. Seriously. Not joking. Right to the heart of the matter
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Nick0678 said:
Oh believe me i am 100% with you on that!! Free abortions for all, as many as they like for the rest of their life.!
To be fair i think EVERY MAN in the U.S should support this. That's it i am applying for a VISA.
Nope don't do it. Abortion will soon be illegal in the good old USA.
-
2
-
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Premium Plus Price already changed?
in General Discussion Forum
Posted · Edited by Moondira
.