sparkle @ sparkle @lemm.ee Posts 1Comments 533Joined 1 yr. ago
And doesn't change the fact that women may and likely did vote yes.
Yeah no. There's no "likely" at all. What evidence do you have towards your claim that the people answering as women in this poll are doing so truthfully? It would be reasonable if it were a study with actual scientific methodology, but it's literally a Twitter poll.
Since you find "women can be pedophiles" (obviously) as good enough evidence that these are all women answering the poll, I can also pull up countless examples of men, yes on Twitter, pretending to be groups which they're not a part of (women, lgbt, minorities) in order to push a narrative. After all, according to your own logic it doesn't matter what portion of people you can prove do it, if it happens at all then it's a likely scenario. People lie on the internet (surprise) and they lie on Twitter especially – it's a site infested with pedophilia and misogyny, it's in their interest to do such a thing.
There's no reason to assume that people answered truthfully here, while there is a motive for bad actors to intentionally vote untruthfully. The poll having answers in and of itself doesn't lend it any credibility considering the complete lack of actual verification of the responses' integrity. This isn't "data", not any that can be used to draw a meaningful conclusion about womens' views on child marriage.
"Truth" isn't something that comes from a poll on X. I don't know how you can even fathom to make such a claim.
The best science we have on the matter suggests that a larger portion of men are pedophiles (expressing interest in sexual relations with children), and statistically most offending pedophiles are men. This random poll on Twitter, a site infested with pedophiles and men with disgusting views on women and women's rights, where any random account can participate, is completely contradictory to the science on the matter. In my opinion, that's a pretty reasonable indication of the results being skewed by bad actors. There is no actual way to ensure the integrity of the results, as literally anyone can vote and anyone can make a new account to vote (and there are a lot of Twitter bots).
Now, I could see the argument that "women on Twitter are significantly less representative of women than men on Twitter are representative of men", but it's hard to see that effect causing this stark of a difference.
Man what are you even talking about right now..? What exactly are you arguing against here? I don't think we're on the same page.
Considering that 95% of adults who marry children are men (according to the UN)... yeah nah man. Guys pretend to be women on the internet all the time. And conservatives on Twitter pretend to be groups which they aren't all the time. There is absolutely 0 chance a higher portion of women answered "yes" to this than men considering the facts of child marriage. It's not just about "pedophilia" but of patriarchal societies where women are treated more or less as sex objects, things which exist for men and who's sole purpose is to have babies.
In a matriarchal society, you would perhaps see more amount of women doing this. These trends aren't an inherent thing to being a man or a woman. But, due to thousands of years of patriarchal culture, girls are the primary victim of getting married off to adults, it's just simply far more common.
Really now? I thought most steel had way more carbon & chromium/nickel/manganese than that. I guess I underestimate how little is needed to make iron no longer mushy.
Are you seriously trying to say that, because of this random online post on a predominantly male site (where most of the yes answers for "women" are likely men) that means that the predatory group isn't overwhelmingly men when it comes to child marriages? Or am I just cataclysmically misunderstanding your comment about the stated gender of the responses of post in response to someone simply talking about girls getting informally married off to men?
The UNFPA & UNICEF report that 95% of adults who marry children are men, while 5% are women. Between 85% and 95% of marriages between a child and an adult involve an adult male marrying a girl. The UN claims that in the US in particular, 86% of married children are girls, a significant majority of whom are married to adult men. According to the UNFPA, globally 25-30% of women get married before age 18, while 3-5% of men get married before age 18; and while most girls who get married are married to adult men, most boys who get married are married to girls (who are also children). Additionally, 10% of women get married before age 15, while 0.3% of men get married before age 15. This is likely because 1. a majority of cultures are highly patriarchal and young girls are often "sold off" as sex objects for (usually wealthy) men and 2. females are highly likely to be able to reproduce before 15, while males are more likely to not be able to reproduce until mid-adolescence, so girls are married much younger (again, nearly always adult men) in order to have children, while boys are usually married to girls around their age because they can have children anyways.
It's not like child marriage between boys and adult women doesn't happen, but let's not pretend that an overwhelming majority of adults marrying children aren't men marrying girls. The same goes for these unofficial marriages.
Permanently Deleted
The land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy!
Permanently Deleted
Tax/fine Google more and give the profits to competitors like Mozilla (as long as those competitors use the funds for Firefox)
Permanently Deleted
It would be a pain for developers, but firefox and chrome using a gig of ram to view webpages and play videos is horrendous even with isolated design.
That can't be helped. Hard to explain well without knowing how much CS you're familiar with, but basically in order to guarantee security/user safety you have to sandbox each tab (basically running an entirely separate container program for each tab which constantly checks for illegal memory access to prevent it from being exploited), all separately running their own interpreters for javascript/typescript, HTML, CSS, all of which are very resource intensive (mainly javascript/typescript). There's not really any getting around this, no matter how well you design your browser.
Now, theoretically, with the growing popularity/advances in WebAssembly, and increase in usage of frameworks/graphics APIs like WebGPU, you could completely get rid of that sandboxing and completely get rid of the extremely slow javascript and html/css, in favor of completely using safe, compiled Rust programs. There's active research using versions of WASM which only accept completely safe code (mainly safe Rust code) so using memory bugs generated from user error to access data in different tabs becomes impossible (aside from potential unaddressed bugs in Rust itself obviously) and you don't need to sandbox each tab – the program practically sandboxes itself. Then you could potentially have browsers with thousands of tabs perform perfectly fine, assuming each of the websites is programmed competently.
But that's not going to happen, because billions of users rely on HTML/CSS and JS, and it's not pretty to transition away from. Getting rid of it would be like getting rid of pointy shoes, or getting rid of US Customary Units in the US, it's just not happening no matter how much benefit it would bring to users. It's not so much of a browser company issue as it is everyone ever would complain and potentially trillions of dollars of damage would be done. Also frontend web devs can barely punch out a "hello world" program in JS so there's no way most of them are gonna be touching Rust or Haskell or something.
The fact that you're trying to paint being anti-statutory rape as misogynistic and heavily imply "the left believes boys who are raped by adults aren't victims/that adult women having sex with kids isn't rape" is... yikes. No, children (regardless of sex or gender of anyone involved) cannot consent to sex with adults and yes, children who are groomed will naturally be more likely to see their grooming as normal since it was literally intertwined with the critical period of mental development in their lives. You can make literally anything seem "normal" or "okay" to a lot of people if you can convince them it's okay when they're young. Your pedophilia & rape apologia is disgusting, Jesus Christ. You're actually arguing that abuse victims/nonconsenting people having sex aren't victims because they can't accept that they were manipulated. That doesn't even only affect children, but abused people in general. This isn't even strictly a left-right thing, people from fucking every part of the political spectrum are wondering wtf is wrong with you after this. Ain't none of the right-wingers I know advocating for the Epsteins and the Dr. Disrespects of the world, even though I'm from the god damn rural south where children marrying adults is legal and middle-school aged kids can legally bang a typical high school graduate.
I'm pretty sure it's from a bunch of conservative dudes answering that they're women to try to make conservative beliefs look popular with women. Like an "as a black man..." moment, except it's "as a woman..."
He said, specifically, people who already have it firmly established in their belief system that abortion is child murder will almost entirely be unswayed by data showing that the current bans aren't effective enough at preventing abortion. They only see it as meaning "the current bans aren't strict enough, and in order to prevent child murder, there needs to be a full nationwide ban".
These people aren't just uneducated on biology and human reproduction (even though that applies to most of them). They for the most part understand that a fetus isn't actually a person in the way a newborn/child is. But that doesn't affect them because the belief is entirely emotional, not scientific – people have a fundamental, irrational moral belief that an unviable fetus is worth more than a living human being. How exactly do you prove that a fetus isn't part of their vague and subjective concept of what a "person" is, if they already won't take biological and psychological evidence as proof? And, following that, do you expect to be able to convince someone that child murder (in their eyes) isn't bad?
I get your reasoning that surrounding them with people who believe actually rational things, and who refuse to tolerate irrational beliefs like "abortion is child murder", will pressure them to also start accepting those things, but that misses the point of what the person you're replying to said. He said that data like the one in the post won't change their mind – and, imo, it still applies when considering how it might affect the beliefs of others since it's not a matter of effectiveness, rather a matter of emotion; a fundamental belief that parents and doctors who go through with abortions are child murderers and bad people. Mature people are just bound to eventually realize that abortion isn't at all even close to comparable to murder, if they have basic knowledge of reproductive biology, and immature people are bound to stick with whatever beliefs they had since they were a child, most often anti-choice in a conservative society.
It's something that changes peoples' minds on drugs, but not abortion. One of the most common insane things is conservative people going to a clinic to get an abortion (or get their kid an abortion), the same people who take part in and sometimes even organize the protests against places that offer abortion services, and get the abortion all while insulting the other people in the clinic and saying how they're evil people who should be ashamed of themselves. They literally can't see the hypocrisy in it, they have an ever-present belief that they're the exception, that their abortion is the only moral abortion. Even when you confront them with the fact that many of the other people getting abortions have similar or the same reasons, they just have this innate visceral reaction to the fact that you're comparing them (or their actions) to her (or her actions). Out of the dozens of cases of this I've heard of, only like 2 of them had someone that changed their mind eventually. And this is the absolute most extreme scenario that one could see an anti-choicer being confronted with in order to change their mind.
I was super confused when I read "loaner", I thought you meant loaning as in like borrowing. But then I realized you meant "loner". Lol
Well for the most part if we want to have a less context-dependent measure, with some caveats – "left" is advocates of a socialist (or communist if you wish to separate them) economic system and social equality, and "right" is advocates of a capitalist or fascist economic system and social hierarchy. Around the center would be where social democrats/capitalists who want strong social safety are, or in other words people who want a mixed-economy/regulated capitalism and are for the most part socially progressive.
Also it's hard to tell what you mean by "pure libs" but in most of the world that implies extremely free-market capitalist and pro-discrimination under the guise of "free speech" – very to the right. They're usually called "libertarians" or "ancaps" in the US.
If by "pure lib" you mean a principled American "liberal" then there's not really much to differentiate that from a social democrat – in practice America's liberal politicians are either social democrats, or corrupt politicians who suck up to corporate money and stand in the way of social democrats – the latter definitely not being centrists. Same goes for "social liberals".
Either way there is no chance that democratic socialists are as extremist as national conservatives. Democratic socialists are barely left of social democrats, so much so that social democrats label themselves democratic socialists all the time. The ideology is dependent upon reforming a fundamentally capitalistic system in an attempt to achieve socialism, while more lefty ideologies are focused on forcing the ruling/regressive capitalist class to comply (and some just outright skip to purging all the aristocracy who are anti-worker).
An accurate-ish description may be "socialist" and "syndicalist" vaguely can be anywhere on the left, so 5.5 to 10; "communist" and similar adjectives like "ararcho-communist" encompass 9 to 10; "anarchist" contains ideologies between center and fully left, so 5 to 10 (although most anarchist ideology is very far to the left, a lot of them are communists); "democratic socialist" is 5.5 to 7; "social democrat" is 4.5 to 5.5; the American "left" is mostly anywhere between 4 and 6.5 nowadays, although a decade ago it'd be more like 3 to 4.5, with actual social democrats being considered fringe or "extremists". US "conservativism" (or "conservatism", pick your poison on the spelling) is pretty much entirely "sounds kinda like fascism" to "fascism" at this point, so 1.5 to 2.5, with some politicians in the faction maybe squeaking it out to 3 or 3.5. Full-blown Nazis are 1. Libertarians/classical liberals are harder to classify in this sort of system, as in practice they're usually as right-wing and reggressive as American conservatives, but their ideology is theoretically supposed to be more like a 3.5. Ancaps are just straight up 1 to 2.5 though, a complete lack of law applying to corporations & companies in general, being anti-government funding except when it's military or police (except some of the farthest right of them believe even those should be completely private). They're on par with fascist in terms of the scale from left to right.
Assuming decimals are out of the question, let's just truncate everything higher than 5 and round up everything lower than 5.
Generally, the American public (or rather, the white majority) hovers at 3 to 4, with younger people being more like 4 to 7.
What's fucked is most people think of prominent historical figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela as at a similar position in a political spectrum as American liberals, when in reality they were literally full-blown revolutionary socialists/marxists and belonged to communist organizations. And figures like Gandhi and Orwell were openly reformist socialists. I mean it's intentional rightwashing by the government to get rid of any and all semblance of left ideology from now-near-legendary people, and it's not surprising at all, but it's still fucked. This is the framework of thinking Americans have when they try to categorize ideologies on a left-to-right spectrum; the most leftist historical figures they know that aren't Stalin or Mao or something are all rightwashed into oblivion, portrayed to be liberal in the American sense, which tricks people into believing the farthest left you can go before you cross the centrist line is Bill Clinton or something.
If we take "left or right" to "how far one acts to accelarate towards progressivism or regressivism", though, then I could see your proposed comparison working decently, with the caveat being that democratic socialists wouldn't be anywhere near communists in that regard either.
I can't think of many things you encounter every day that just use straight iron. Only alloys that use iron
Meanwhile, you'll use very pure aluminum all the time
This is very apparent if you go on a YouTube news comment section. It's basically all salty conservatives lmao. They're in panic mode
I'm gonna let you know right know, Lemmy isn't the place for alt-right nutters who had disgusting enough views to get banned from Reddit of all places (a pretty conservative community in general) for being too right-wing. Lemmy is literally a gradient of full-on communists to centrists that at least agree we should have basic social welfare. Even the prominent conservatives here aren't openly vehemently anti-lgbt and anti-social welfare like American conservatives usually are.
Lemmy isn't exactly politically extremist, but even the relatively right-wing-friendly Lemmy instances (like world) look communist compared to Reddit
Actually I mixed them up with a different channel. Hard to differentiate them by name when half of them are "Chess" plus some other word lol