WalrusDragonOnABike

The SMW kaizo community has several prominent trans contributors and notable members (Shoujo and shovda being probably two of the more public ones, both participating in the relay race at SGDQ 2022, which also had at least two trans creators). I’d include Maddy among the notable member, but that’s a relatively recent thing with her release of Super Sonic Saves the World World and Sure Shot (a level of which was in the SGDQ race and was co-created with another amazing member of the community). Unfortunately it wasn’t always that way apparently (the SGDQ 2019 relay race did include someone who was later shunned by the community for platforming transphobes apparently).

Also, the kaizo community and Celeste community have a lot of overlap given they’re both tough platforming games for lots of community-made content.

Its also just small enough that everyone can know most other people who are part of it.

Celeste speedruns are fairly competitive from my understanding. I have not watched the top players, but in general the Celeste community seems pretty good from the little indirect interactions I’ve had with them. But it’s solo play and leader boards, not real-time matches (although those probably exist too, but you still don’t interact with the other players).

Curious if that direct combativeness is part of difference. Of course another important difference is the Celeste community is fairly unique given its trans game status. But I don’t think that’s necessary to build a good community: smw kaizo isn’t inherently trans, but the community decided years ago that it wasn’t going to tolerate transphobia, for example. But its extremely non-competitive imo.

Who?

One school of thoughts is companies go through eras of profiting from inflation and eras of profiting from M&As. Guess an uptick in M&A would suggest they’re no longer increasing profits from inflation?

If you live in 44 out of 50 states, congratulations. Your electoral vote basically has 0% chance of mattering. Vote for who you like the most.

If you live in 1 of the of the other 6 states, congrats, your vote has like a 0.01% chance of mattering, but if enough people follow that line of thinking it might actually matter, so probably consider who you vote for more seriously because (even though I won’t vote for someone like Biden) I still would prefer bidet winning over turnip.

If you live in 44 out of 50 states, congratulations. Your electoral vote basically has 0% chance of mattering. Vote for who you like the most.

If you live in 1 of the of the other 6 states, congrats, your vote has like a 0.01% chance of mattering, but if enough people follow that line of thinking it might actually matter, so probably consider who you vote for more seriously because (even though I won’t vote for someone like Biden) I still would prefer bidet winning over turnip.

Even when conversion camp stuff is illegal, people still try it. Even if just DIY abuse (which is also illegal and still common). Simply not having the tech may be preferable to having the tech/knowledge, making it illegal to use it, and then people use it illegally anyways. If child abuse in general was something that could have just not been invented, not inventing it would be far superior to inventing it and then making it illegal.

Probably something along the lines of “not negative or positive, but in the middle”. Basically a synonym for net zero except net zero may account for other GHGs while carbon neutral may only refer explicitly to carbon. If the process releases CO2 at some points and absorbs the same amount of CO2 elsewhere, then it would be net zero or carbon neutral. But if you release carbon that was stored for 100s of millions of years and would have continued to be stored otherwise and then just store that same amount of carbon for 1-5 years, then you aren’t really offsetting and aren’t really carbon neutral. Given none of the offset programs seem to have presented concrete evidence for long-term storage, they’re worthless in this context. I suppose you could fund short-term storage indefinitely, but how could Apple prove that they’re going to be able to fund carbon offsets for a watched purchased today in 75 years? If funding a lumber farm program that harvests trees after 15 years, I suppose you could just fund it every 15 years after an item is manufactured indefinitely? But how would a company demonstrate they’re going to continue doing that in 75 years?

If we have the tech to change people’s brains in such a way, what else will it gets used on? Ethically, there’s differences between pedophilia and other sexual preferences but I don’t know if there’s any biological differences. Given conversion camps are already a problem despite not working, I can’t see how they wouldn’t become a bigger problem if they did actually do what they claimed…

Destroy people’s homes, utilities, food, etc, then pulling out and saying “not my problem” while people die from lack of basic necessities and medical care as a result of Israel’s destruction and Israel does a pikashocked face while continuing to do whatever they can to limit aid getting in still seems pretty bad. Like, better than stealing the Territory…

So you didn’t even bother looking at the sources for the claim you make fun of?

Given members of the IDF have supported the idea that it was an intentional attract to get Hamas hiding in the hospital from the moment it happened, why don’t you believe the IDF members and Hamas when they agree that it was an Israeli attack? I don’t even believe it was an Israeli attack* and this incident just further demonstrates the IDF members and Israeli officials will just make up stuff to bolster their side even when they have no actual information. There’s no reason to believe either side imo.

*The worst case is Israel defended themselves against a missile and the payload from the middle happened to fall on a hospital because a terrorist group was too incompetent to make sure that a hospital wasn’t directly under the trajectory. I don’t think someone having an incoming missile has any obligation to first check what happens to be under the missile at the time before destroying said missile, so it’s still doesn’t make Israel look bad imo like some people are claiming.

So random rumors spread by soldiers should be treated as truth (because its pro-team Israel ) but reporting on what the ministry of health of gaza, officials in israel, and random israel soldiers all confirm is spreading baseless lies (because it is anti-team Israel)?

No denying AJ doesn’t spread propaganda. But if Israel wants to stop propganda, maybe they should start by getting rid of their officials and soldiers, who are spreading the rumors in the first place?

Ahh, that explains why the upvote to downvote ratios are always so large. They pull all upvotes, but only kbin downvotes. Interesting choice.

I’ve seen a thread where someone suggested building a canal through the whole region and a replying saying to glass the whole region. Granted, they wanted both sides wiped out, because somehow a group of people within each region committing violence justifies nuking the entire region?

Not exactly common sentiments either: out of 100s of comments, those are the only two I’ve seen along those lines. No clue where they were and I’d they may have been removed by mods, making them harder to find (but mod logs do exist), so unfortunately I can’t link to them.

Was it? Or is this the babies that were burned to death news? Neither is good, but technically the later still isn’t evidence of the former nor does it prove intent (beheading 40 babies is pretty hard to do accidentally, and uncontrolled fire burning two babies can very much be an accident).

Either way, Hamas did kill civilians, including babies (pretty sure there was one that was shot in addition to the two burned), which is terrible and in no way should they be given any sort of pass just because Israel has previously committed acts of violence. But its still fair to call out fabricated news meant to push for mass killings of civilians, including children and babies.

I see 6 upvotes and 0 downvotes on the original comment and 3 up and 1 downvote (me) on this comment. I downvoted comments talking about votes. Guessing kbin just doesn’t count votes from defederated instances, so its probably all downvotes from the same problematic instance…

Pretty sure sarcasm, but unfortunately I feel like this comment could easily be made seriously.

Are they just using “conservative” as a synonym for something like “political”?

Then are you suggesting I should be compelled to consume your products or media to avoid punishing you for your bad opinion?

Stop taking away the freedom of speech of those who believe “freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences” by punishing them with your disagreement!