This, 100%. How people view the homeless (as a group, if not individually) is the quintessential, textbook example of just-world fallacy.
And your interpretation that it is a coping mechanism is also accurate. People need to resolve the cognitive dissonance of “I’m a good person, and good people help the homeless, but I’m not helping the homeless for X,Y,Z (possibly legitimate) reasons”. One of the easiest ways to resolve that is the just-world fallacy
Looks like a Korean manhwa https://m.series.naver.com/comic/detail.series?productNo=9830315
A bit of reverse image search and translation got the source: “Unemployed Deadbeat Gye Baek-soon”
https://m.series.naver.com/comic/detail.series?productNo=9830315
Please take a deep breath, then read what’s next slowly, focusing on the meaning, not just the sounds. Read it over and over if you have to.
Ready?
Your abuser needed to put you down. They needed to make you hate yourself. They needed you to believe they were the only one who would ever love you. Because they knew that if you ever realized how strong, how worthy, how amazing you actually are… you’d leave.
Keeping you from believing in yourself is the chain they used to tie you down. You are strong. You are loveable. You are worthy. You are so much more amazing than you could possibly know. And the very proof is these wretched feelings that were placed in you by an evil person to keep you caged.
Every time you start to think these negative thoughts, I’d like you to say to yourself - out loud if that’s what takes - “these scars don’t define me. If the things they said were true, they’d never have needed to say them at all. These thoughts are the proof that I am so much better than that asshole would ever let me be.”
You can defeat this
You can be powerful
You can find love that is beautiful and kind
I believe in you
If you like that, look up “Blendo” from the Robot Wars era (before BattleBots). Created by Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage, it was also a spinner. And insanely effective. And outrageously dangerous
IN THE MIDDLE OF MY BACKSWING?!?!
This is the most accurate conclusion so far. The US government considers it a national security threat. There are lots of things it’s “okay” for your own government to do but not a foreign government :)
Unfortunately most, if not all, of these AI filter apps offer some sort of beautification, as it’s very popular and a good source of user acquisition
It looks like the best you’ll find is something like B612
Interestingly there is a body of research that suggests enjoyment of music comes from having exactly one of two things, never both:
Familiarity and predictability
If it’s neither familiar nor predictable, it is inscrutable and therefore discomforting to listen to
If it is both familiar and predictable it is boring
If it’s familiar but unpredictable, it feels like a journey through known emotions
If it’s predictable but unfamiliar it feels like ‘logical discovery’ and is fun and satisfying
A bit reductive but I love this idea
I think we have far more that we agree on in this conversation than we disagree on. We can get into the minutiae of specific UIs but that probably misses the point.
Where I agree with OP is on the first impression of the default Lemmy UI to users trying to migrate from big-corpo products
For better or worse, these folks have come to believe that “slick looking” = thoughtfully designed = featureful and advanced. And that “sterile/boring looking” = amateur UX design = complicated and difficult
We can’t break that mentality in the general public by simply repeating over and over that they’re wrong. It just doesn’t work that way, sadly.
On my Mastodon server, we have the Elk frontend available and have it listed prominently right next to the sign-up/sign-in button as a “Twitter-friendly UI experience” (also on our About page). Then, we periodically throw up an announcement telling users that apps, Elk, etc don’t provide all of the features available on the modified webUI/PWA, along with a list of what they’re missing and how to learn more.
It’s an “abopt, extend, extinguish” approach and it works. There’s a reason corporate enshitification pioneered that strategy. We can use it too, but for good :)
If the goal of Lemmy - and specifically lemmy.world is to be a boutique, niche aggregator then fine. But that is explicitly NOT the goal. That may be what some users want but they are free to go form their own small servers and isolate as much as they want
I am not suggesting that every community needs to be growth-oriented. Small groups are great.
But they are also weak, and virtually incapable of creating and maintaining the systemic change required to protect themselves long term.
If the attitude is “let the capitalists take over everything else, I’m happy with my underground movement that struggles to survive” then that’s honestly bordering on selfish. “I’m happy so I don’t care about what happens to others. They can figure out how to find us and do what we do or get fucked” kind of energy. It’s privileged in the extreme
The best way for small communities to thrive is through collective action. And in order for that to happen there need to be enough small communities to have any sort of influence as a collective. And in order for that to happen, there needs to be an entry-point into the collective that is accessible to newcomers.
That is what Lemmy - and especially lemmy.world - have positioned themselves to be. It’s not dissimilar to Mastodon(.social)
Get ratiod and blocked, weirdo. Go try to impress someone else with your misuse of logical fallacy terminology. Some people might be convinced you’re smart but probably only on hexbear lol.
Buh-bye, chief 👋
LMAO this chump thinks hexbear is a good example of…well, of anything, really.
Go circlejerk in your little group of isolationists if you want but please stop telling the rest of us about it. You sound like a weird voyeur
That’s quite a novel way of saying “I don’t know what enshitification is actually about, nor do I understand why broad adoption is critical for protecting the long-term existence of community maintained software”. Kudos on your creativity!
Seriously though, “keeping good things small for the sake of keeping them free of interference by capitalist interests” is misguided. Quite the contrary, leaving a large audience on the table is a surefire way to guarantee that an opportunistic capitalist will capture that market and drive community maintained options into obscurity.
I don’t agree with the determination either, and I definitely wouldn’t run my own community that way
But I’m also a community admin elsewhere and have been doing that kind of stuff for like 25 years or something.
So I don’t really begrudge any admin for deciding what things are off-limits for their community. It’s up to me whether I participate there or not
It’s not your space to make that decision for. You are not the one who has potential problems if it draws negative attention. You aren’t the one responsible if server admins choose to block that community due to the law-breaking information you’re making available.
The appropriate place to share information that clearly instructed people on how to break the law is in private, or in a space you have created and control yourself.
It’s uncool to demand others allow you to use spaces they are in charge of like this. Have a little respect for the people who actually created these spaces.
Yeah that’s is definitely not well presented, but I’m willing to assume good intent here I think? Like, I can get behind the difference between people who are suffering due to dysphoria being fundamentally different than people who are suffering from the expectations placed by society on their gender. And I feel like that was at the heart of their statement, despite the presentation being awful
It shouldn’t be that confusing, considering this is literally the challenge lawmakers (honest ones, as rare as they are) face.
There’s a great blog post by Neil Gaiman (despite recent revelations about his misconduct) that talks about “why we must defend icky speech”.
Long story short, the law is a blunt instrument. If you cannot clearly and accurately define the terms being used in the language of the law then you wind up with a law that can be applied beyond the intended scope. Like when you write laws about freedom of religion and then wind up with The Satanic Temple erecting statues of Baphomet in court houses. Or banning the Bible from library because it contains depictions of violence and sexual deviancy or promiscuity
These issues aren’t just academic. They have real-world consequences. Like, there have literally been legal rulings made based on the presence or absence of an Oxford comma
Is that kind of pedantry useful to the average conversation? No, of course not. But there are people trying to make laws that target women, or trans women, and if they can’t accurately define what a woman is then the law can be used to target people they didn’t want targeted.
Which is one of many reasons why trying to target trans folks with legal authority is a fool’s errand