Skip Navigation

Posts
6
Comments
418
Joined
3 yr. ago

Message me and let me know what you were wanting to learn about me here and I'll consider putting it in my bio.

  • no, I'm not named after the character in The Witcher, I've never played
  • pronouns: she/her

I definitely feel like I'm more of like a dumpling than a woman at this point in my life.

Hannah Horvath

  • vim fast, IDE slow, I use vim because I'm impatient

  • then I would pay the $2 once to get access, then just grab all the links (they're just private youtube videos) of the tangent videos, and then unsubscribe 🤷‍♀️ not the most ethical, but ... it's still technically feasible

  • it's only $2 to get access to all the Tangents, well worth it

  • fair, but her tangents are more varied in topic she has videos on psychedelics, spirituality, the Barbie movie, etc.

  • ContraPoints, she only charges on months she produces content- it's not even every month if she isn't productive. Her Tangent videos are worth it.

  • in the 1960s and 70s there was a similar moral panic about lesbians, and a rejection of lesbians as women and as belonging to feminist groups by a vocal minority of second-wave feminists, very similar in some ways to the current moral panic about trans women and the vocal minority of TERFs.

    https://www.advocate.com/history/betty-friedan-anti-lesbian

  • I don't tend to post news or politics, I think those posts are rather saturated on Lemmy.

    It's pretty ironic my most recent post is a political post, and here's another political news article post I made ... So to say I've "never made a single news or politics post" I think is factually wrong.

    Either way, I was hoping to appeal to your conscience here.

    I'm not sure I understand your moral argument - you say that there are moral problems with every news source, and if we held moral standards to the sources we used, no posts would be permitted on Lemmy, but ... you know, there are better and worse places to drive traffic, better and worse places to use as a source. It's not all or nothing, you have to know this right?

    So, reading between the lines, what I'm hearing from you is that it's not a deal-breaker for you to drive traffic to a website that perpetuates conspiracy theories and seeks to deny people like me healthcare, that these are morally tolerable positions.

    I've been thinking about this a lot since reading this article on free speech about how often people will side with "free speech" until it's a topic they don't actually tolerate - e.g. very few "free speech" advocates continued to defend Milo Yiannopoulos after he started to advocate for pedophilia.

    Here's the salient point I think the article makes:

    The truth of the matter is that there are two types of speech or expression: those that we (either as individuals, or as a society) are willing to tolerate, and those that we do not. (This is explained compellingly here.) You may cherish a particular word, idea, expression, or identity. But if enough people collectively refuse to tolerate it, well . . . you can shout “free speech!” at the top of your lungs all you want, but it isn’t going to protect you.

    In the end, what I'm hearing is you are willing to tolerate a news source that peddles far-right conspiracy theories that aim to strip people of their rights and manipulate people into rejecting science, that these ultimately are tolerable views, ones you are willing to indirectly support by continuing to link to Newsweek and drive traffic there.

    Maybe you would not feel the same about linking to a neo-Nazi website directly, or to a Holocaust denial website, or maybe a website that hosts child pornography or advocates for pedophilia - I assume these are views you probably wouldn't tolerate and wouldn't want to be associated with or support even indirectly.

    It's OK if my attempt to appeal to your conscience failed - I assumed from the start that we were more likely to be on the same page on this, but I guess I was wrong. Sorry for wasting your time.

  • In November 2022, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that Newsweek had "taken a marked radical right turn by buoying extremists and promoting authoritarian leaders" since it hired conservative political activist Josh Hammer as editor-at-large. It noted the magazine's elevation of conspiracy theorists, publication of conspiracy theories about COVID-19, views such as support for a ban on all legal immigration to the United States and denying adults access to trans-affirming medical care, and failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest in the content published on Hammer's opinion section and podcast.

    Newsweek in particular is vile and horrible, and you are driving traffic to them. The argument that there are other news sites with problems is whataboutism, it doesn't address that this news source has a serious problem.

    Besides, here's an easy alternative and less problematic source: https://www.axios.com/local/tampa-bay/2025/03/25/florida-child-labor-bill-migrant-workers

    (it's not that hard)

  • newsweek is a conspiracy peddling right-wing rag, please stop driving traffic to them

  • hm, if it's not too much to ask, maybe a visual would help? Like, an example where Excel or some other program shows correct layout, and LibreOffice has incorrect?

    I haven't had much discomfort with LibreOffice and I tend to be pretty OCD and I do UI work, so ... maybe I've just ignored it - would like to learn, though!

  • They assigned male at birth, they were wrong - oops.

  • mistakes were made

  • he has been obsessed recently with explaining how "beautiful little girls" can just live with fewer dolls :-/

  • this is the way

  • I prefer Google Sheets to Excel, but I still use LibreOffice Calc for everything anyway

  • it doesn't feel that different than Word and Excel, tbh - I don't know what you're talking about

  • 💀💀💀

  • they did surgery on a grape!

  • yeah, I personally ascribe to this view, and prefer index funds to alternatives like stock trading. My comment was meant more as a joke, implying the news is a reason to panic sell off Berkshire stock, lol - I don't actually have any idea whether that's a good idea, it's probably not.

    (I would have jokingly said the same after Steve Jobs died about selling Apple stock, and indeed there was a dip in stock price after his death, but Apple's market cap was $300 billion before his death and after he died it more than doubled to $900 billion by 2017.)