OpenStars

joined 2 years ago
[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 1 points 11 months ago

But the (clickbait) title got people to (click) talk about it so... it accomplished its publishers' goal, nonetheless.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Wow those eyes 👀 - did he grow up to become Mark Zuckerberg?

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

Same in return!:-D

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I like to think that we all waste many of our talents here - it's what brings us all together:-).

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago

Can confirm - am poop knife.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

You are talking about user-level blocking, whereas iirc defederation is an instance-level blocking that also stops user comments too, as well as votes.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago

The “election” is perpetual. People will vote with their participation.

As it should always be.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 21 points 1 year ago

Why is "Threats" in double-quotes? The fact that they are "threats" is not in question - these are not "alleged threats"?

I see that it comes from the article, but that only pushes back my question as to why the article does that. It also puts "hard right" and "all-out" (and "holy war" and "race war" and "dangerous" and "evil" and "demonic" etc.) in quotes too, which should not be, but those at least are all more discretionary, whereas putting "threats" in quotes like that calls into question their validity.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 30 points 1 year ago

He can love his son and also democracy and justice too - i.e. allow his son to go to what will surely be like a resort vacation spa that they will call "prison" (not bc he's special, just bc he's rich).

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I take them as conclusions, summaries, wrap-ups, basically like "Goodbye" or "Well, I'll be seeing you", "It was nice talking to you", "Welp, time to get back to work", maybe something more personal like "I'll see you in an hour at lunch".

The decision may have already been made to stop / pause for now, but the former (OP) statements themselves do not cause that anymore than the ones I mentioned here.

short circuit cognitive dissonance…

Omg I'm literally dying here - except you know what, I'm actually not? I'm saying that it seems overly dramatic language to me. Like someone who heard those words somewhere and thought they sounded cool, without knowing what they even mean...:-P 😎

Though tbf they probably could be used for that purpose sometimes too, yet that doesn't mean that is what they are "meant for"?

Maybe I'm just too old to get it.

view more: ‹ prev next ›