sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 months ago

Joe Pera

Todd Barry

[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Good idea, link the community and post here, too, thanks.

[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I think you may have to start a new community for this, I'm genuinely not sure where a story like this might go. Excellent, though. Very interested to find out more.

The "Casual conservation" community is probably too casual for this. Maybe creating something like /c/WildPersonalStories ?

[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 9 points 11 months ago

Look man, if your options are literally only "do nothing and accept your fate" or "kill a bunch of innocent people who never did anything to you and actually may have supported you" then maybe you should just give up and accept your fate, because we're literally seeing how many more innocents are dying because of this. They didn't put a dent in Israel's defenses. They gave Israel more excuses to the international community to murder even more innocents. Great plan, Hamas. I'm glad it worked out so swimmingly and actually changed things instead of just continuing the same bullshit cycle. /s

If you can point to me out how this is going to result in anything other than more death and destruction, feel free to clue me in. Because fuck nothing has changed. They didn't take out the people responsible. They didn't change the power balance, and now even more Palestinians are paying the price because Israel is a fucked up aggressor.

Acting like a bad plan that resulted in more innocents deaths is some great blow against the establishment is dumb as fuck.

[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Agreed, of course. Was just pointing out that such a thing did exist. Charities are not the most effective way to handle such issues, absolutely.

Charities absolutely rely on things like public relations and advertising campaigns to raise awareness that they exist and/or need funding. It leaves everyone at the mercy of which charity is "most popular" and if yours isn't very popular, you could see it disappear. It also means a significant portion of the budget is spent on things that don't actually address the real problem, which is hunger.

[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago

...and you're treated as culturally insensitive if you point out that it's partially motivated because of two bullshit ass religions, and the reason they won't stop is because they've each just got to prove their God has the bigger dick, even though they're technically the same God.

2
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by dingus@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

EDIT: Downvotes with no comments. Shocker. Guess it's hard to back up your opinions, huh? I guess some people are totes fine with war criminals walking free?


What it says on the tin:

Obama told the nation that we "needed to look forward, not backward" when it came to prosecuting war criminals George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

He would end up legalizing and codifying a lot of the worst excesses of the Bush administration.

His actions of letting war criminals walk without any consideration of what they had done literally set the stage for Donald Trump being treated with kid gloves. I don't see how the two aren't connected.

Both of them dealt with the question of "Can we successfully prosecute a former President?" Obama kicked the can down the road to ignore the question entirely, because it might appear "partisan" or something.

As evidenced by Trump's national security documents case, they really wanted to kick the can down the road again. They gave Trump every opportunity to just return the documents with nothing but a slap on the wrist. They only started bringing criminal charges when it became clear that he never had any intent of returning anything.

Obama is viewed so favorably by so many, but it's hard for me to do so when I think about this. Obama's unwillingness to address this question in his administration is outright why we are facing the governments inability to reign in Trump at all. He's done so many things that would have shown regular people the endless inside of a jail cell, but they just let him keep running around free.

When you allow criminals to walk free, other criminals see it as way to get away with whatever they want. That's pretty much how Trump treated the Presidency, a "get out of jail for fucking everything for free" card. He still views it as such. It's hard to imagine he didn't get this idea by watching previous Presidents get away with tons of shit that would see the rest of us behind bars.

Anyway, long story short: Thanks, Obama.

237
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by dingus@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml

The website isn't worthless so much as the watermark on memes.

1180
submitted 11 months ago by dingus@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
32
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by dingus@lemmy.ml to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

This is how it felt.

256
submitted 1 year ago by dingus@lemmy.ml to c/technology@beehaw.org

tl;dr: No. Quite the opposite, actually — Archive.is’s owner is intentionally blocking 1.1.1.1 users.

CloudFlare's CEO had this to say on HackerNews:

We don’t block archive.is or any other domain via 1.1.1.1. [...] Archive.is’s authoritative DNS servers return bad results to 1.1.1.1 when we query them. I’ve proposed we just fix it on our end but our team, quite rightly, said that too would violate the integrity of DNS and the privacy and security promises we made to our users when we launched the service. [...] The archive.is owner has explained that he returns bad results to us because we don’t pass along the EDNS subnet information. This information leaks information about a requester’s IP and, in turn, sacrifices the privacy of users.

I am mainly making this post so that admins/moderators at BeeHaw will consider using archive.org or ghostarchive.org links instead of archive.today links.

Because anyone using CloudFlare's DNS for privacy is being denied access to archive.today links.

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/PmSkp

73
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by dingus@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

I wonder if anyone else remembers this. It came to my mind because I was reading this story:

https://www.sbsun.com/2023/08/19/shop-owner-shot-killed-over-rainbow-flag-outside-clothing-store-near-lake-arrowhead/

The owner of a clothing shop in Cedar Glen was shot and killed Friday night, Aug. 18, after a person made several disparaging comments about a rainbow flag displayed outside the store, authorities said.

The suspect was found nearby by arriving deputies, who shot and killed him, San Bernardino County sheriff’s officials said.

This is... horrible. I don't even know how to describe it. For the first time in my adult life, I'm genuinely horrified and fear for my LGBT+ brothers and sisters, as well as their allies (which includes me, fuck).

2013 felt... different. Two years later in 2015 gay marriage would be legalized nationwide.

I remember thinking EA was trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I remember thinking that LGBT+ acceptance in 2013 was doing well. I remember thinking they were throwing up that people voted for them as worst company over LGBT+ inclusion as some kind of way to hand-wave away their awful business practices. Going back, though...

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/04/ea-executive-responds-to-worst-company-poll-we-owe-gamers-better-performance/

In the past year, we have received thousands of emails and postcards protesting against EA for allowing players to create LGBT+ characters in our games. This week, we’re seeing posts on conservative web sites urging people to protest our LGBT+ policy by voting EA the Worst Company in America.

Does anyone else feel like me, and feel dumbfounded and like I just didn't think conservatives were that organized at the time? More to the point, I just didn't trust anything EA said and thought they were lying. I don't think they were lying anymore. I was wrong.

I wonder, does that mean that far fewer people hated them than we thought, for their business practices? I mean, we've seen years of steady profits for EA, it's not as though they've lost a ton of business...

I'm curious what other Lemmings thoughts are on this. I just kind of had a bit of an epiphany about it recently and came back around to thoughts on the subject because of (sigh) how awful everything is.

1
submitted 1 year ago by dingus@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
2
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by dingus@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
4
submitted 1 year ago by dingus@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
2
submitted 1 year ago by dingus@lemmy.ml to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
2
submitted 1 year ago by dingus@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml

After being purchased by Snapchat, it appears that gfycat has been abandoned.

The Gfycat service is being discontinued. Please save or delete your Gfycat content by visiting https://www.gfycat.com and logging in to your account. After September 1, 2023, all Gfycat content and data will be deleted from gfycat.com

2
submitted 1 year ago by dingus@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
view more: next ›

dingus

joined 4 years ago