I am absolutely confident that the people who created this comic would not be happy with everything that isn't illegal being allowed on the websites and social medias they frequent; more importantly, nothing about this seems to be specific to the sexual orientation of the banned content, despite the spin.
The only thing that actually seems to be an issue here is the credit card processors.
Any time furry stuff gets banned, people claim it’s an attack against queer people because seemingly most furries are queer. Of course many queer people do not identify as furries, but they’re getting dragged in by those that do because claiming persecution for being a furry is going to garner much less sympathy than claiming persecution for being queer.
Just because somebody suggests one extreme is a bad idea doesn't mean they are advocating for the other. The framing of this response, especially the "bulldozed over predominantly Black communities" line very much feels like an attempt at character assassination, as if you were trying to connect opposition to the status quo with racism.
If I hadn't seen corporate lawyers representing multi-billion dollar investment firms regularly advocating my City Council with just this piece of rhetoric almost verbatim, sure.
But it's been ten years since I've been involved with local community organizing and I know a dogwhistle when I see one. Whether or not the original poster intended it to be a dogwhistle or just formed that opinion memetically after uncritically absorbing astroturfed 'drain the swamp' rhetoric, it all leads to the same place where private equity and other investors get to run rampant with little regulatory oversight.
That's a false dichotomy. One possible solution to the problem being bad doesn't mean that the status quo is actually good or that there aren't workable possibilities that are reasonable.
A broken clock is right twice a day and all that. Regardless of who you witnessed parroting the rhetoric and to what end that doesn't necessarily mean the rhetoric is wrong in and if itself. In this case I'd say it's quite obviously correct.
And why is it correct? This is just more rhetoric stating a point with nothing that looks like evidence. Do you also have examples? I admit mine are anecdotally acquired over a decade and likely specific to my experience in Atlanta and its surrounding counties. What have you experienced?
> Do you also have examples? I admit mine are anecdotally
As I pointed out, the reasoning you expressed doesn't work. Your examples do not support the position you were advancing.
As to disputing the accuracy of individual points you'd need to be specific about what you're taking issue with. It's not on the other party to provide evidence when merely voicing agreement with something someone else said (or rather my expression of agreement is itself the evidence of my claim that I agree).
The whole thing reads like a bizarre, vaguely schizotypal manifesto, complete with it's own confusing form eccentricities.
I checked the "hashtags" link and was met with the following: "Hashtags are a critique and a rallying cry to gather round. They are the protest banners of the openweb"
Nothing says protest banner of the "openweb"(?) like a convention invented by Twitter.
Sometimes it's hard to tell if a well-formatted blog is popular or it's just a single person screaming into the void. We don't have pageview counters anymore.
I didn't see any comments on this page, nor did the linked Mastodon accounts have much engagement, and that suggests the latter.
Also, both the number of and length of posts started increasing dramatically in 2024, which might just be a strange coincidence.
That seems a little tautological, like "Maybe Unix had directories, but Windows Folders are purely a Microsoft invention."
They're both a symbol-with-label text convention for users, and in each case it designates a topic and mechanism for users of the service to converge-on the topic.
I think early Aqua (10.0-10.1) may be my personal favourite, although I don't think I can explain as to why. I remember liking the pinstripes (although I think they were controversial at the time). The 10.5-10.6 look (which was a relief after the brushed metal tsunami of 10.3 onwards) is a close second place and I still use a Snow Leopard box for occasional tasks to this day. I may even have my slipstreamed 10.6.8 disc image still kicking around somewhere.
Just make sure you are open to the idea. It is correct to be skeptical if you know anything at all about history, but be open to the idea if proof is presented.
Why needlessly do extra work when it's easier than ever before to modernize what is already made? Why would he want to be a vanguard for "hand coding"?
So often it feels like people lose track of the actual conversation happening in the comments in favor of posting a cute quip for points...
This thread originated with one poster expressing disappointment that someone of the author's acumen would choose this path, and another poster asked why the author (or someone of their skills) should have chosen a different path. I weighed in with an answer to that question.
Obviously the author did not see things the way I suggested, or else the conversation would not have happened.
If hand coding doesn't matter, why have your ai write a lengthy explanation on the implementation and architecture of some feature? You don't think this juxtaposition is a bit odd?
I never said manual coding doesn't matter and I don't think anything Kerr wrote implies that he thinks that either. Nor does using LLMs to code mean the implementation and architecture doesn't matter.
reply