Only reason I’m not back on Reddit is their garbage app. If they fixed that I’d ditch Lemmy immediately. The community really is worse here, no matter how much they want to claim it’s better.
People here will attack you for having a slightly different viewpoint than the status quo, which I can’t really even figure out. It feels like a tight knit clique, and I’m not a part of it. Often times I just don’t comment on things, because I expect to get downvotes and made fun of.
Likewise. I guess when you hang out on the equivalent of c/denofvipers you shouldn’t expect a terribly friendly community. Don’t like the community? Find a different one! Found your own if you have to!
From what I have seen if you explain your viewpoint people usually tell you why they disagree and you can argue with them as long as you stay respectful.
Same here. The communities I’ve interacted with here, if I was on the equivalent subreddit, I’d have be downvoted to hell for not knowing enough. I find I’m able to have proper discussions here
Yeah it fucking sucks. Every response is political and hyper hostile, like damn I get it capitalism and the USA have caused some issues but man I am just asking about Taco Bell’s new menu item.
Tried posting about an obscure issue with the latest Steam Deck update and oh my god 1) I was attacked for being wrong, Valve doesn’t make mistakes ever and 2) I don’t understand how dev pipelines work (I work in IT dev for a Fortune 100 company haha)
Posted the same thing on Reddit and the response was like hey thanks for the heads up and then helped people affected by the issue get to resolution.
Lemmy as a community truly is super fucking bitter and it sucks. Hope it changes, Fediverse is a cool idea and I am so down for a Reddit replacement but not if it is gonna be an asshole factory.
I’m sorry, but your comments on the Steam Deck post certainly did not help with the hostility, as you were being quite hostile yourself.
In that post, one person made a snarky retort, and clearly you were understandably upset, but I would argue a good chunk of the hostility in that post comes from you. I think possibly even just starting the post with the title containing “basically bricked my deck” is already framing the discussion in a somewhat inflammatory manner.
Pretty normal to get hostile when someone gets hostile with you. Exact opposite reaction on the same Reddit thread, underscoring the point that OP is making.
one day to recoup from no sleep and working nonstop everyday. One day to do all the chores and errands you didn’t have time for during the work week. Then time to finally… do it all over again yay!
You don’t. If you live where cars are not needed, e.g. Tokyo, you’ll just walk to your nearest small grocer and get the ingredients you need. That’s what I did when I stayed in Japan for work.
And that really worries me. The government should offer free options for people like that. Uber Eats and Instacart exploits the hell out of people like that.
See, I knew one of you motherfuckers was going to come in here and make it obvious you just don’t care about the actual facts, you’ve already made up your minds and seek to make up everyone else’s minds for them.
Maybe instead of treating every single discussion of anything like an epic shitfight, you all should just pool your money together, buy your own land, incorporate it as a separate county, and build your own walkable cities and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
Because you all are doing nothing but demonstrating for us once again the negativity and childish banality of the human condition, and I’m tired of it.
The immaturity, the short-sightedness, the complete lack of empathy or consideration for anyone who disagrees with you – you all are attacking people, not just me, who are calling out walkable cities for being unviable for disabled people. One stupid motherfucker here even suggested people like that use delivery services to get their groceries instead of being able to drive, knowing Instacart and Uber Eats exploits the disabled and isn’t available everywhere. No consideration that it’s unfair for disabled people who can’t walk far regardless. No consideration that what you want isn’t completely viable because different people with different needs exist, nothing.
Y’all are just angry other people are opposing you because you think us chucklefucks online disagreeing with you is a barrier to what you want and I’m tired of putting up with it.
So until you change, I’m going to be angry at you, and if you don’t like me being angry at you for your own behavior, that’s a you problem. I don’t need you to listen to me or even like me, but you apparently need my approval for your stupid policies and ill-thought-out ideas, and therefore you need me a whole lot more than I need you. The only one hurt by my anger is you. You’re the one complaining about it.
You’re fucking political parasites and I’m tired of it.
Now let’s watch your dumb ass prove my point and do nothing but address my anger and my emotions while not addressing the needs of the disabled people who would be thrown under the bus with car bans at all. 🙄
There are people who need more aid than the busses are equipped for and the bus line runs specially equipped shuttles out to them on request at no cost (back when the busses had fares it cost the same as a bus ride).
It’s not that way in most other cities on the planet and you and I both know this.
And it doesn’t address one of the many serious problems with car bans – denying the disabled the right to travel on their own terms and not the bus services.
What happens when they cut routes or service?
Or refuse service for political reasons like during the lockdowns?
Or otherwise dictate when and where you get rides, or who can go with you, or how you travel, or how much stuff you can bring with you?
Or if the service becomes overwhelmed and they simply can’t provide rides to everybody?
It’s terrible and fucked up to expect the disabled to put up with it just so the c/FuckCars chucklefucks can get rid of what they deem as eyesores.
i don’t know how it is in most cities on the planet because i don’t live in them and haven’t looked into their public transit.
part of having a common good is defending and upholding it. usually when there’s a problem with the routes people show up and yell loud enough that something gets done. I don’t think they’ve cut a route and not replaced it with one that has more stops or split it into two that provide more coverage in like 20 years.
during covid here there were fewer busses running, but it was because of reduced ridership and they ran more on demand shuttles to make up the difference. they started installing big crazy air filters on the top of the busses too, so now you can’t even smell a fart on one.
when there’s more people than the route can handle you gotta wait, same as when there’s more traffic than the road can handle. here when that unexpectedly happens they redirect people to other routes when possible.
a lot of what youre talking about is disabled people getting equal access to what car drivers have, which is good when the disabled person lives in a place that expects everyone to have a car. if a place were to ban cars, expect people to use public transport and operate public transport with enough volume and coverage to replace them, it would be better for the disabled than expecting each individual disabled person to own a car with expensive modifications to accommodate them and become licensed to operate it or hire a driver or service in the case they cannot become licensed.
serving the disabled and elderly is what’s driven the expansion of bus routes and accessibility here. we don’t even have car bans and it’s a benefit for so many people!
You accuse others of childish banality yet the only condescending jackass in this discussion is you as you lob insults and talk down to people.
News flash, walkable cities and public transit are better for disabled people than cars. Have a person in a wheel chair try to drive a car. Lets a blind person peel out on a motorcycle why don’t you you dipshit? Know how easy it is for a paraplegic to use a subway? They take a ramp or elevator down then roll on and off the cars as they please. Know how a blind person can get around without needing a friend with a car? They can make their way to a bus station where they can be taken across town.
Oh and finally, a “car ban”? Who mentioned flatly banning cars you disingenuous idiot? We want to design infrastructure for more than just cars, not ban them.
One way to come across as childishly banal and negative is to rant at someone for how bad of a person they are because of your own idiotic assumptions about their position.
You’re an insanely unserious person so log off and look into what people are actually advocating for instead of swallowing gallons of bullshit from people that know better. It’s unbecoming of someone with your smug sense of superiority.
And here’s stupid motherfucker number 1 coming down the hall and up to the stage to prove my point.
This isn’t a conversation about your feelings or mine, this is a discussion about the viability of walkable cities for the disabled. And they’re not viable for people like that and never truly can be, not without cars. So unless you assume every resident is riding around in a wheelchair and plan accordingly, which you can’t do because most major cities were built way before the ADA and similar laws in other countries were passed – even before the wheelchair and walkers were invented.
What you want requires trillions of dollars in investment you are never going to get. Not unless you do what I told you to. I gave you stupid assholes a solution, but you’re still not listening. Why?
Because for you, this is all about your feelings and not about building a better world at all.
You’re up in here writing walls of text to personally attack me, like you always do, because all you care about are your stupid fucking emotions. And I emphasize your emotions.
You clearly don’t give a fuck about the old people who will be trapped in their houses, isolated and alone, because they can’t make use of anything other than a car.
You don’t care about the motherfuckers in wheelchairs who you will be effectively imprisoning either.
You sure as fuck don’t care about me other than “How can we exploit this asshole’s anger to make them look bad and win the argument?” because all this is about for you is winning an epic battle against me that is only happening in your own head, because I hurt your feelings by telling you facts you didn’t want to hear, and now you’re getting revenge.
I called you stupid assholes and you, personally, a stupid motherfucker and you will not display one bit of temerity or maturity at all by ignoring it; in fact, that’s all you’re going to talk about because all you care about is how you feel. Not the actual topic of debate.
And that’s why I don’t like you, and I will continue to be an asshole to you until you change, and not before. Like I said, you need me a whole hell of a lot more than I need shallow, stupid, petty, selfish, emotional and violent scumbags like you.
Sorry but reality doesn’t stroke with your concerns. Old people are stuck in car centric cities when they can no longer drive. Disabled people are stuck in car centric cities when they cannot drive. Cities that prioritize other modes of transport have more options available to both groups and you’re mad over nothing.
Edit: just look at Dutch walkable cities as an example - they’re perfectly accessible for old people and disabled people. Sorry but the idea disabled people can only use cars and need car-centric infrastructure to live in a city is delusional.
Sorry but the idea disabled people can only use cars and need car-centric infrastructure to live in a city is delusional
And one of the most tired scapegoats used by people opposing it, we all know they don’t give a flying fuck about accessibility when it comes to any other city planning or infrastructure project.
Pot meet kettle lol. People are making actual arguments about how a walkable city is better for every class of person, not just one specific class, and you’re throwing them all out, without entertaining the thoughts at all, and with a fair bit of vitriol.
Any situation where the average person doesn’t need any special equipment (a car) to get their things done is going to be better for everyone. As a off the top of the head example, when no one else NEEDS to drive, for instance, the people who do need to can more readily. Or they can utilize other, cheaper, specialized equipment, like powered wheelchairs more easily, because everything is within walking distance and the streets aren’t packed with people in cars.
That’s not what’s happening but thanks for showing the class you haven’t been paying attention at all.
You know, if all you invested a fifth of a third of a quarter of the energy you’re investing trying to get something over on me onto building these walkable cities you supposedly care about, we’d all be on Saturn by now.
Or, if we’re changing cities already we could make more accessible homes and public transit. If someone in a wheelchair can’t get onto a train you’ve made the train wrong.
Man. There’s a Korean drama on Netflix… I think it was All of Us Are Dead. The apartment building had a bodega-like grocery either on the first floor or connected to it. If we’re going to redesign, can it be like that, maybe?
I traveled up and down the East Coast with my dad when he was in a wheelchair. Every city was a little different but Amtrak has made their trains this way. A special ramp is needed, which has to be fetched by someone. Baltimore was the worst about it, but they did get us on just fine, and kicked a guy out of the handicapped starting. New York City was incredible. Dude hung out with us until our train showed up and made sure we got on and situated before regular boarding started. Though I think he had dealt with something similar personal and took it upon himself. DC was at about the level you’d expect and was pretty pleasant.
Great to hear, that is actually a lot better than I would have expected. It would still be ideal if you could use it as easily as someone not using a wheelchair but we do have to live in the real world and accommodating everyone is complicated and expensive.
So in other words, disabled people still need cars – they can’t ride bikes or e-bikes and scooters are too small for them – and you didn’t think about what you’re saying.
What? I said it depends on the disability. Depending on why you can’t walk to the store, a bike or e-bike might work. Not every disability is the same. I know people that can’t walk to the store but can use an e-bike.
How is a mobility scooter too small for a disabled person? It’s literally designed for the purpose. And by Microcar I mean what you see in Amsterdam as microcars, not ‘a small car’.
As a disabled person who can’t drive, I ride my ebike everywhere. I can easily fit a week’s worth of groceries because it’s a cargo bike, which makes it even easier to balance and steer because of the way it’s weighted.
Im lucky to live in an area that is becoming increasingly bike friendly. 10 years ago I barely left the house because it wasn’t safe to ride on the road, and I couldn’t afford uber/taxi, and there were no accessible bus stops near me.
When something is more than 20km away I will take a bus or an uber - but there’s no reason that uber couldn’t be a microcar, or a light vehicle (like an electric version of the old milkman lorries) for those that need ramp access or electric wheelchair transport.
At the moment in many places, disabled people are already forced to use paratransit systems because adaptive cars and taxi services are prohibitively expensive.
There will always be a need for some people, and some communities to have and depend on cars. The goal is to reduce this to as few people as possible by making it easier for those that are able to choose other methods.
By having specially designed cars that enable them to drive.
Even the ones who by the nature of their disability can’t do anything mentally or visually taxing, like drive, don’t disprove or negate the need for cars because everyone else with disabilities need them to get around. Public transport simply isn’t suitable enough for them.
Even old blind people who can’t pass driving tests use Uber or Lyft, because public transport simply isn’t safe or suitable enough for them, especially during grocery runs.
I have an older retired mother who uses a cane and can easily move about once she gets into the store by using the cart to stabilize herself. Taking public transportation is a no-go where she lives, because the one thing that I haven’t seen mentioned here yet, is crime. As an older woman with a walking aid, she’s the prime target for criminals, who also know old and elderly tend to not trust banks and use cash.
I do what I can to help and support her, however this is not always feasible, and in her words, she’d “be damned if she wasn’t able to get out of the house and do her damn shopping herself”.
And she’s able to drive just fine. But I guess she should give up her car, her freedom, so you can feel better about, whatever the fuck you think it is that getting rid of cars will fix.
Walkable isnt “walkable” for someone who has trouble walking. Brainwashed? Hmm. Explain. And twat? There’s two reasons you’d use that word, you’re either European or Australian, and if that’s the case, I’ll take twat and wear it as a badge of honor. The other case is you’re American and around my age or older where that word would be in our vernacular, in which case, at least you didn’t call me a cunt, because then I’d be really sad.
Public transport simply isn’t suitable enough for them.
Ding dong, you’re wrong. Walkable cities are more accessible for everyone than the carcentric dystopia.
And you literally quoted someone talking about public transport, so there’s that. Can’t wait to see what fun things you come up with to call me this time.
Uh, ever heard of commercial and residential zoning? You can have a Bodega down the street and a big box store 5 miles away. Both can coexist in the same city. Unless you’re talking in absolutes, which seems like pretty poor city planning. Not sure where you’re from, but in the US such things exist.
Even old blind people who can’t pass driving tests use Uber or Lyft, because public transport simply isn’t safe or suitable enough for them, especially during grocery runs.
You are assuming a car centric city here. In a walking and transit oriented city, it is safe and suitable for blind people to be independent and move by themselves. Only cars make the cities unsafe and the lack of transit makes it unsuitable to use something else than a car.
And I am assuming that because they are the norm you’re complaining about in the first place.
If they’re not, then go move to one.
It’s as simple as that. But you don’t get to demand other people lose their cars just because you don’t like them, especially disabled people that will always need them as no walkable city will replace the individual autonomy, carrying capacity and convenience a car provides.
You seem to live in a car centric city with really shitty public transportation. My city has decent regular bus service and for those who need extra help, they have more handy centric busses that will directly pick people up on a schedule. I think even the tiny town I grew up in has a service that does the same because there are tons of older people that are not able to drive. We also have a shuttle service to the train station if you live too far away from one.
There are solutions to these problems that tons of cities have had no problem implementing. It sounds like either yours is not one of them or possibly it is not a service you need so you just plain do not think about it.
I’m not like super pro car or anything but your argument in my experience doesn’t really hold up. I work at a farm and we have a lot of elderly folks come in and shop by themselves. They drive themselves and shop themselves but I doubt they could do that with a walker and if they didn’t have a car I doubt they’d be finding a different way to come out here.
Rural life is a whole different beast from urban. I won’t ever make the argument that rural living people shouldn’t have cars. So yeah, plus one for that argument.
Rural life definitely, but I’m in suburbia hahaha. I just can’t imagine public transportation being able to replace what a car can do for elderly people
If the individual is so bad off they can’t manage to get on a (more robust than we currently have) form of public transit, I really question if they should be driving. The simple fact of life is that at a certain point, maintaining complete independence isn’t a reality. This isn’t a bad thing, we should be moving towards embracing Ireland building the systems we need for people to get help at that stage of life.
These people have no problem driving or taking care of themselves, I’m sure plenty shouldn’t be driving, but doing something like shopping and then walking your groceries back home simply isn’t an option for a lot of people even if public transportation was more robust. Sure, past a certain point everyone loses independence, but there are plenty that don’t need to that you are advocating should
In what world is a disabled person able to board a car on their own but not a bus or train? And in what world are those busses and trains not staffed with people to help? Are we talking self-driving busses and cars with wheelchair driving options as a standard?
Edit: Seems the response is for the disabled person to: JuSt SpEnD mOrE mOnEy ; but we couldn’t possibly be bothered to spend more on public transit to make it more accessible.
At least in my country, bus drivers that need to help people in the wheelchair to get up on the bus are already at the edge of their patience. Don’t even talk about helping them stuff seven bags of groceries as well. That’s why unfortunately, taxis are still a necessity
I think the best solution, if we can redesign our cities, is to incorporate more mixed use buildings, or at least more mixed zoning. Why even have to have a bus if your building has a connected grocery and 3 other small shops on the same block.
These issues only really exist because everything is SO spread out. We have strict zoning regulations that mean having a grocery in a residential area is at best a challenge, and realistically impossible. This means we have to go further for the most mundane daily tasks, and this means we need more robust transportation, including cars.
ETA:rereading this it looks like I’m making an argument for no cars, buses or anything. I’m absolutely pro expanding public transportation, merely stating that if things were slightly different, you could eliminate the bus entirely from this situation specifically
Sure this applies for suburban or rural life. Everyone has the space to have a car there. In a city, which is what my entire argument stems around (you can see elsewhere in this thread where I state I wouldn’t ever dream of taking cars from rural people), it’s more like “the car is in the parking garage connected to the apartments. And the bus stop is just in front of the apartments, maybe down on the corner”
I didn’t say it had to be an individual who needed to help. It could be any number of programs, services, or even yeah, individuals.
I mentioned mixed use buildings in another part of this thread, something like an apartment complex with a bodega-like grocery on the first floor or directly attached. What about moving more towards that kind of building? There are a ton of solutions that don’t require cars.
Friends. Family. Building facilities. Government programs.
The simple fact is that at some point, people just can’t be completely independent. It’s the nature of growing old. This is only really a problem because we have such a strict independence culture, where if you can’t do for yourself, you may as well just die, society doesn’t have time for you.
If we recontextualize this, and see growing old and more feeble not as some personal failing and instead as the symbol of a long life, if we start looking out for those around us, and if we start building up the facilities we need to allow people to gracefully enter elder-hood without stigma, we’d all be a bit better off.
At 85 years old my Mum can’t drive or walk, she does her own shopping with an electric mobility scooter and occasionally needs the help of others … that works fine for her because she lives in what might be called a “15 minute city” these days.
Thankfully, my little corner store will remain open during floods and other natural disasters as well as pandemics and such. So it will never be necessary for me to have more than 24 hours worth of food in my house.
I used to buy ingredients for my meals every second day while living in Europe. Always what I wanted or was on sale. No meal planning for the week and making a huge order / weekend mall spree.
Just walk in to the local shop on your way to/from wherever else you’re going (or just to get out of the house for two minutes if you’ve been working from home) … that way you can have fresh ingredients every day, and you’re walking a bit regularly so you don’t get overweight easily
It’s super simple. You stop there on your way home. When I was in Berlin, I would generally hit up the grocery store a few times a week. I did not have to worry about produce going bad because it would be used with one of my meals on the next couple of days.
The reason you haul entire shopping carts at once is because the trip to the grocery store is a big planned deal. That’s also the reason people buy bulk items and then let half of them expire.
The “ideal” for bikers and train riders would be easier, quicker trips to small stores to get ingredients for the next few days. I find I’m able to fit most of my needs into one pannier.
This changes sharply if you’re buying for more people than just yourself.
The reason I haul entire shopping carts at once is because I don’t want to waste time shopping every day. A big 2-hour haul per month vs. 1-2 20-minute trips to the local corner konbini every day. Plus some of the bigger bulk stores deliver (this is Hinode, Tokyo; rural ones probably don’t).
Buying in bulk is far less expensive: you pay less (duh), but you spend a lot less time on it too. If I’m buying groceries just-in-time and the nearest shop doesn’t have the ingredient I need that day, I have to go to a different shop for that one item. Lots of time wasted, and a lot of stress on top. You can’t change your mind later either, because you’ve already bought ingredients for that one meal. So I prefer to have things buffered in stock, and resupply in advance. You also use far less plastic packaging that way, e.g. buying a 25-liter premix syrup canister instead of hundreds of coke bottles.
Not to mention that the grocery stores that are well located are usually more expensive. The cheaper options exist in less number and so it makes it less convenient or sometimes not possible at all to get to on a normal work day.
My experience is different. If I go for grocery once a week I buy a lot of stuff which rots or expires. If I buy it daily I just buy what I need, and what I want that day.
Yes that’s how it works. You save some money and spend it in other shit.
Also I don’t have a car just so I can go get groceries. I have a car for a multitude of other reasons and I can get groceries. Driving 5 mins to a supermarket has an insignificant cost, and if that supermarket is cheaper then you can save multiples of that.
Regarding the stuff expiring, that’s just your experience. I have the opposite. There’s plenty of non perishable shit that I can get when it’s on sale because I can carry a ton of it if I came by car. Meanwhile if I go shopping by foot and I need laundry detergent I’ll just have to get whatever they have at that time. You can save a ton of money like that.
For easily perishable food yes buying regularly is better but that also means a ton of wasted time going to the supermarket very frequently even if to get only a few items.
If a grocery store is within walking distance why not make a trip of it with the whole family? Many hands make light work. Or, just because a city is human focused instead of car focused doesn’t mean no cars at all (at least in the way I would implement it) you could rent a car for a few hours every couple of weeks.
Obviously these ideas won’t work for everyone but they’re just off the top of my head, and unfortunately there is no system that will work for everyone. We just have to try for works better.
I will say that I’ve been able to bring 3-4 grocery bags onto a bus, which is enough to last me around 2 weeks. I’ve done this fairly consistently (basically whenever it’s too cold/snowy to bike) for the last couple years. It might not be possible for a family without more than one person making the trip, but for an individual it can definitely work.
I completely understand that, and I know that’s why a lot of people need cars. I was primarily responding to the parent comment claiming that it wouldn’t work for anyone because it’d be impossible to bring enough groceries with you on the bus/train.
Oh, I see now. Sorry about that. Yes it’s possible to use public transport in cases where you don’t need much and the time necessary isn’t outlandish. I think I was conflating several messages in my head when I responded to yours. Glad to see some people are able to be civil here.
This is ok though, going once per 14days for that 90% of stuff and having your car for that is ok. Otherwise if you run out of something, hop to your nearest store. Also here some of my friends and family are not reachable via public transport so I use car for that. But dont use it for commute every day, going to the beach/mountains every weekend, going to the store every other day, taking kids to school and back etc. For many this is completely doable but people are lazy
Buses where I live have a cargo rack at the front. If you had four bags of shopping (though that’s really quite a lot - the bags are big) you would tie the tops closed and leave them in one of the racks until you reached your destination
If you had four bags of shopping (though that’s really quite a lot - the bags are big) you would tie the tops closed and leave them in one of the racks until you reached your destination
Along with the 75 other passengers doing the same thing?
And what if it’s paper goods and raining like fuck?
Can doesnt mean do. Most people drive distances that are longer than 8 minutes.
If the argument to give up the car for shopping and to replace it with a bus is countered with the amount of bags on the bus, then your counter to that cannot be to just walk.
I mean the idea is that good urban planning would enable shorter and more frequent grocery store trips. Rather than a supercenter supplying everyone within 30 miles, requiring long drives, you’d have things distributed by need, i.e. general food stores every couple miles, more specialist places potentially farther away. Our current layout and shopping habits are contingent on car infrastructure and massive federal subsidies.
Would also decrease waste and increase general health, since fresher, less processed food could be purchased.
Okay but this isn’t what happens. When using services like instacart they will batch only maybe two or three orders in a car. Unless there are other services that I’m not aware of that will batch more?
I don’t think grocery translates well to mass delivery because it increases rates of spoilage and damaged produce.
I live in UK and fall the major supermarkets they do 20-50 deliveries in one fully refrigerated van. This is clearly a culture difference between where I live and wherever you live.
But yes it’s EXACTLY how it works in most of Europe.
I have my own cart that I walk to the store with, I never have much trouble with it, and it’s super useful when I need to get heavy things like milk. I’ve never brought it on the metro as I’ve never had any reason to, but it would not be too difficult to do so. It’s no more difficult than carrying a suitcase or two to the airport.
“We, the enlightened and human rights respecting West, did an about face on LGBT people having rights about 10 years ago after many centuries of violent persecution and suppression.
Now you, the country who’s main ethnic group derives it’s demonym from a dynast of bisexual emperors, and which has never had large scale and systematic persecution or suppression of gay people, must depict gay people in media exactly as we do.
Can gay people exist in America without their sexual identities being the subject of endless culture war bullshit?
I’m all for China legalizing gay marriage and full protections for LGBT people. That process requires Chinese society to have its own conversation, which is what’s happening right now. Copy pasting American culture war bullshit verbatim isn’t going to do gay people any good, and a gay character in a kids movie certainly isn’t going to do jack shit.
the newer generations in china have been leading the way in terms of a public opinion shift towards acceptance of LGBTQ people. on social media and in city centers you can find a lot of LGBTQ youth freely expressing themselves from what i’ve seen.
They’re having the conversation right now. Like there was a recent incident where LGBTQ stuff was banned off Weibo (Chinese social media) and there was a public outcry that reversed the decision. It’s up to China to decide how they’ll progress and I’m optimistic about it.
China’s censorship laws are mostly designed for protectionist reasons, like they don’t want their domestic film industry overrun by Disney or Sony. They’d rather have an internal market that’s not bound to international businesses. That said, their censorship board is, for better or worse, operated by a bunch of stick in the mud boomers. Hopefully it’ll get better with increasing awareness among younger people and changing trends. That said, the idea that China needs its government overthrown because it censors movies or that the state isn’t as progressive as it could be? That’s absurd and not helping anything.
I should also mention that homosexuality was mostly seen as normal or ignored throughout Chinese history up until the 19th century. It was a theme at the time that Britain or some other western power would start involving themselves within an Asian country and rewrite local laws, including restrictions on homosexuality.
Most of the useful conversation to be had is not from the west demanding they just adopt western culture. I don’t support censoring movies on homophobic grounds, but I think gay media produced and shown domestically (which absolutely does exist) is much more productive and important.
Because giving the impressing that LGBT issues are an imposition on Chinese society by the West in general and America specifically is going to distort the issue at best and at worst give the conservatives ammo to say that LGBT is an American plot to blah blah blah. Especially in the context of a Disney movie, aimed at kids, which adds in a “they’re coming for our children” factor.
It would do incalculable damage to the advancement of LGBT rights in China for such rights to be tied to America or the West, so on balance the censors probably did the LGBT community a solid here.
Plus, that’s assuming that this is the censors in China and not Disney self censoring because Disney thinks the Chinese censors care.
Well for one, China and much of the global south have been struggling against the political, economic, and cultural hegemony of the West for centuries now and there’s a pretty visceral aversion to doing whatever the west is perceived to be telling us to do. Especially so on a cultural and societal level where Westerners have zero idea of who we are and how we do things but just constantly tell us how we should think and behave.
In this specific context, there well recognized scholars who posit that homophobia was spread in China by Westerners during the late Qing and Republican era. In addition to being rightfully wary of Western social and cultural meddling, there is also a strong rejection of the hypocrisy of the West causing this problem in the first place and now judging us for not immediately following their model in solving it.
For another, Western media just recently demonstrated how willing it is to politicize Disney movies by accusing China and Occupied Korea of being racist because of poor ticket sales of The Little Mermaid. If Westoid media makes a big song and dance about how a billion and a half Chinese people are homophobes because we didn’t turn up to see a Disney movie, that’s going to taint the whole movement with an association to hysterical Western political media.
Nope! And thats bad. But marriage equality is not the only measure of queer rights. Queer people in China are largely left alone and not hate crimed and speaking as a queer I’d rather get to be alive than get married.
China absolutely needs to work on its legal rights for queer people. I’m not saying otherwise. But you are still looking at the issue through a very western lense, and a hypocritical one considering how recently queer rights have even been begun to be accepted in the west. And how fast we are moving backwards on them in America especially. And how bad issues like homeless queer youth still are.
Why is it hypocritical? I’ve supported the LGBT movement for literally as long as I can remember. It’s somehow my fault that other people haven’t realized that gay people are still people?
Have you ever criticized someone for looking at the issue through a very eastern lense or is that reserved for people you deem as western-enough?
I’m not a Christian, but one of the things I’ve always felt Jesus was really on point on was when he said “take the beam out of your own eye before taking the speck of dust from your neighbors”.
I think this can be applied to geopolitics very well, even if you think the other country has the beam and you have the speck of dust, its still advisable to focus on your own countries problems. Its hypocritical not on a personal level, but on a national level. To use a non Christian phrase, its throwing stones in a glass house. Idk what specific country you’re from, but unless its China you can’t do much about China’s issues with queer rights, so why focus on them? Focus on wherever you’re from.
Like literally the only thing a Westerner can “do about” Chinese queer rights issues is encourage war/regime change, which you should know does not have a good record of working out for the effected country. And thats the problem we communists have when people start talking about China’s problem. We know our countries want regime change in China, so we see this shit as supporting of that. Its basically a threat.
Have you ever criticized someone for looking at the issue through a very eastern lense or is that reserved for people you deem as western-enough?
No, I haven’t, because I’m a westerner lol. Like I said, I focus my criticisms at home.
I want good for all people on this Earth. Like, I wouldn’t ignore verbal abuse just because there’s physical assault still happening, y’know? I’m not a politician or even a particularly smart guy. I know my original post came off bad, sorry.
why is inclusion in an often patriarchal/misogynistic and conservative institution as marriage the end-all-be-all of queer rights? this is such an annoying talking point from liberals. i have heard american conservatives going on national stages and calling for the complete genocide of trans people, but i have not heard of anything like that from chinese politicians.
china has a long road ahead in terms of queer rights, but compared to queer rights (and “rights” like the right to get married, right to die in an imperialist war, etc) backsliding in the west, there’s a pretty big difference.
I ain’t no fucking lib. It’s a simple standard of acceptance in society (i.e. gay people get to participate in the same governmental institutions as everyone else).
The critique of marriage as a patriarchal institution was invented by anarchists lmao. I’m just a “tankie” but I’m well read on anarchist lit, why aren’t you as an anarchist?
I’m not aware of any queer anarchist critiques that don’t acknowledge that marriage, especially as recognized by the state, is a patriarchal institution, they just go on to elaborate how that can be subverted within queer culture. Do you have any links or recommendations for writings that argue that marriage recognized by the state isn’t a patriarchal institution at all?
Gay liberal trying to pull up the ladder, no trans person gives a fuck about marriage when they are getting murdered. Look up trans murders per year in the United States and China, I’ll wait, as I know that Russia has less trans murders than the United States
Edit: I believe trans people should have equity too, and the freedom to enter into whatever type of relationship that they so choose, whatever that may look like. Ironically, it’s you who are trying to invalidate other people’s relationships. I’m doing nothing of the kind.
I’m a queer anarchist and I’ve posted plenty on hexbear, is it possible you only notice the takes that cause you the most instinctive reaction? There is a more diverse array of views there than people on other instances realize I think. And I’ve seen more constructive discussion there than most places on the internet, including lemmy.world and other instances.
That’s great, although I’m not sure how well someone who fundamentally opposes statehood can find much meaningful discourse there.
Look below, and you’ll see tankies accusing me of transphobia and all manner of evil simply because I choose to be married, even though I by no means exclude or invalidate anyone else’s relationship.
It fucking sucks when people can defend a state for excluding gay people (or any people) from rights that others enjoy. It’s in itself LGBTphobic. Not me – them
The only ‘tankies accusing’ anything I saw in the convo were people mentioning that “marriage is a patriarchal institution”, which I don’t see how that is calling you a transphobe even if you disagree. Someone did mention trans people don’t care about marriage because they are being murdered, maybe that is what you are referring to, it really didn’t come off to me like anyone was calling you a transphobe but maybe I’m wrong. I didn’t see anyone say that you couldn’t be married, or that people can’t enjoy having a marriage, to me that is separate from critique of marriage as a patriarchal institution. But yeah, I don’t know why anyone would defend a state for anything. That’s part of why I do feel the need to engage with more ‘state-friendly’ socialists, to figure out what about it seems necessary to them, or if there is some greater flaw with my anti-state belief.
That’s a pretty generous interpretation of someone accusing me of being a typical gay person “pulling up the ladder.” In fact, your just straight up being dishonest here.
I think you need to examine your personal motives for associating with people who defend authoritarian genocidal regimes. Maybe you’re privileged enough not to care, but I give a fuck about people. Goodbye
Damn you got really mad at someone for saying that they are interested in why pro-state socialists feel that way and want to learn. Why does someone wanting to learn make you so angry? Maybe because you’re closed minded and refuse to listen and learn in the slightest?
Someone with as much obvious privilege as you, who wields it in conversations freely, calling others priviledged for the mere act of engaging with people who think differently than them is quiet rich.
ETA: I think you need to maybe think about introspecting instead of lashing out when someone accuses you of being a priviledged white gay westerner “pulling up the ladder”. Because that is a quiet common phenomenon (see men like Pete Buttigieg for example). White gays who aren’t poor saying “ok, we won marriage equality, dont care about the rest of it” is very frequent and you ARE acting like that in this thread.
If that’s the kind of logic that convinces you of things, you should check out all of the other people saying the same thing as me.
Basically your one job as a leftist when it comes to capitalist propaganda is to not unquestioningly repeat it and guess what you’re doing, lib. And it’s in the realm of orientalism to boot. Not exactly distinguishing yourself.
why is inclusion in an often patriarchal/misogynistic and conservative institution as marriage the end-all-be-all of queer rights?
Kind of reminds me of the space race and how the USSR had all these amazing achievements but America decided that the winner was the first one to land people on the moon.
why is inclusion in an often patriarchal/misogynistic and conservative institution as marriage the end-all-be-all of queer rights?
Legal protections mostly. If you get married, you have a right to see your spouse in the hospital. Otherwise, they’re just another person even if you’ve been living together for 50 years. You also have a right to inheritance, the right to receive pensions and 401k, etc etc. An unmarried partner is essentially left with nothing unless explicitly stated in a will and even then they don’t have all the legal protections.
Imagine living with someone for 20 years and they get into a car wreck, you can’t see them before they die because you’re married. You get kicked out of your home because legally you’re just a roommate and have no right to stay in that house. Then, all the money your partner invested goes to their shithead parents who kicked them out as a child. None of that would happen if you were married.
Marriage is an outdated contract but the functions it provides are still important to society.
Edit: Obviously I support China but marriage isn’t just a “proof of love” or some other sentimental thing.
I’m gay and housing is just as hard to find for me as it is for my straight friends. Housing in the United States is prohibitively expensive, even/especially for renters depending on the area. This comparison was flawed to begin with, but that’s not surprising considering it’s the argumentative equivalent of a “no u”. Die on a better hill.
China is not perfect on the matter of right-to-housing, but it is very good. Everyone has a right to have some kind of housing unit, though they don’t necessarily (and in fact, I think usually don’t) “own” it and family homes are counted if the kid isn’t formally disowned. A very large number of the homeless population in China are “itinerant homeless,” those who do have a family home but have moved elsewhere and aren’t paying rent for an apartment (usually due to poverty, and therefore may live on the street) in order to try to get a job in the city with which to support themselves and possibly the rest of their family, who are usually back home in some rural area. This is very different from what homelessness typically looks like in the US, though it happens here too.
If a child is not formally disowned but is nonetheless forced out by their family, then it’s effectively a matter of child abuse to be handled by the appropriate government organization once it is discovered/reported, and either the family recants or they formally disown the child. If they are formally disowned, they are entitled to shelter.
Though not the same system by any means, I think the DPRK’s law on this subject is similar, though it’s much easier for poor families (and kids therein) to fall through the cracks, meaning that you are more likely* to find a homeless queer kid there as a consequence.
Literally the only thing tankies can say about the atrocities their beloved authoritarian dictators commit is “but amerikah”. Fuck off with your bullshit.
The very fact you're able to do all of this is an effect of politics. And there are people that also would like to have similar rights to exist the way the feel is right for them, but they can't.
The very fact that they’re able to do all of this is also an effect of the mitochondria in their cells. But if people tell me to stop talking about mitochondria 24/7, then I should just find a group of other mitochondria enthusiasts to interact with instead of ranting about how I’m ““right”” to make everything about mitochondria.
Freedom of association = (meeting with friends) that’s definitely political
Barbecue = relatively safe to use and won’t explode because of government regulation, politics.
Jalapeño poppers = safe to eat due to food safety standards, again politics.
Conversation with friends = regulated by societal norms and acceptable behaviours, an output of the political environment - ‘let’s not talk about Trump or abortion to keep it “civil”’
Games/books/puzzle = function of the economy regulated by the government and laws. Consumer protections etc etc
I know you’re trying to be dismissive and funny but yeah…you’re just proving the point.
Some countries stupidly accept non delivery as the norm, and that’s on them.
If your delivery person leaves your package outside your house, that’s NOT, I repeat NOT delivered.
They got 99.9% of the way to delivering it and then abandoned it on the street at the very last step. It must be handed to an occupant or pushed through the letterbox to be delivered. This is obvious.
What do real delivery companies in normal countries do? If they can’t deliver the parcel, they don’t just drop it on the floor and wander off, because they’re not insane. They either try to leave it with a neighbour, or they try to deliver it again another day (or depending on the service, they may leave a paper slip in the letterbox indicating that it can be collected from the local depot).
Countries that accept delivery people throwing their stuff on the floor undelivered have nobody to blame for that but themselves. That is not the norm, it is not reasonable, and they only do it because the people in those countries allow it, and don’t do anything about it.
It’s madness. Utter insanity. Imagine if the postman did this with important letters!? “The letterbox is stuck, better just leave then on the floor outside!” Can you imagine! MADNESS.
You say that, but in the US, if you don't live in an apartment, your letterbox most likely doesn't lock or anything like that either. They may as well just be tossing the mail onto the floor.
Cool story. I don’t know a single person in my area with a letterbox let alone a locking one. It’s just not something we have in the more rural areas.
Unless this is a language thing. To me, a letterbox is generally attached to a house, often it’s just a slot on the front door. And a mailbox is on a post near the street (and generally they do not lock)
I've only really ever heard of the box outside of someone's home being called a postbox or mailbox. Despite the fact that both terms also refer to the box at the post office where you can put outgoing mail, there's just no separate word for them. And I've only ever heard of the slot on the house door where the mail is placed being called a mail slot.
Letterbox is a completely new term to me in this context... and I still am not quite sure what it would mean, if not a mailbox. Haha.
It’s an interesting discussion in general… I’ve lived in 5 states in the US and mail service isn’t necessarily the same across all of them even among similar types of neighborhoods…
For example, in Georgia it’s common for every house on a rural residential dirt road to have its own individual (non-lockable) USPS mailbox at the end of their dirt driveway.
In Colorado, on the other hand, it’s not uncommon for many of those similar rural dirt road neighborhoods to have a communal (locking) mailbox at the entrance to the dirt road neighborhood similar to what most apartment complexes have.
It’s also not uncommon in Colorado or even California for some suburban single family home neighborhoods to have similar communal (lockable) mailboxes but that’s less common, in my experience, in most Southeastern states.
I’ve also lived in an old Victorian building with a mail slot but it had been converted to apartments and had a multi unit locking mailbox bolted to the front of the building at that point.
I don’t remember if I had a point or not now other than that shit is weird.
Not really. Letters are generally of a known size so a house-side box is used to receive letters. It’s a letterbox. Then mailboxes, which you may note are generally much larger than house-sixe boxes, are intended for more than letters, and are sized as such. They care called mailboxes dur to them holding more than letters/envolopes.
Please explain? After doing some quick googling, it looks like my interpretation is pretty accurate. But again this could be due to localized results. I’m not going to pretend all English speakers use the same words for the same things.
Not sure why the aggression, I was stating an objective point of view so that people can get some counter perspective. It’s an important part of establishing the scope of things normally. But ok, go full steam ahead captain.
What’s your point? We know there’s different infrastructure and protocol for delivery in different areas, which was established in the original comment.
Do you have a residence in every single place on Earth? No? I can tell you that I’ve never lived in a neighborhood with (outdoor) mailboxes with locks. Does that add anything to the conversation?
Brazilian here. Had a package get home when no one was there. Delivery girl called me and asked if she could leave it with a neighbor and which one. Told her the one to leave it with and that was it. Leaving it on the street is insane
I prefer having my shit left at the door as opposed to being bothered to have to come to the door to personally accept it from them.
I’m typically busy and I’ll get it when I get to it… But, I don’t live somewhere where I have to be paranoid that someone is just waiting to steal my shit either.
But like you are still gonna go and get the package so what’s the big deal with doing it when it arrives? You lose nothing by doing it that way. Or if you know you are gonna be busy at a certain time set the delivery at a more appropriate time (now that I think about it is this not a common option?)
USPs, FedEx and UPS all require “signatures” (really just a name) when delivering to businesses. They don’t leave business packages in front of the door.
In Poland there are parcel machines everywhere. Ordering pretty much anywhere on the internet you can just ask for there, it will be cheaper, and you will have to go just like 200 meters on average (I live in a point just between 3 machines so it is 300) in a city and less than a kilometer in most towns and bigger villahes and your parcel is always there. Much recommend. Wont work in america
Amazon has package lockers that people can choose to have their stuff delivered to if they’re concerned about it being dropped at their front door but USPS, UPS, and FedEx don’t.
They will however, for packages that require a signature, bring them back to their local depot and hold them for pickup if necessary.
Speak for yourself. I’d rather them leave the shit at the door then have to trudge my ass down to the post office to pick it up, which I have had to do for certain deliveries and it’s annoying every time.
You know they give us the option. If im not here I can select what happens to my package. Post office, post box next to the supermarket, give it it a neighbor, deliver it sometimes else or place itnon front of my door.
You know even FedEx delivers packages into customers hands in Europe? You have to sign on their tablet that you received the package. They call you in advance if you are there for delivery and if you are nearby they even do a detour. This is general practice for all big delivery companiesike DHL, GLS, DPD, FedEx and many more.
You can pay extra to require a signature on deliveries in the US too but for most shipments it’s really just a waste of money that may cause delays in receiving your package if they happen to come by when you’re unavailable.
While I often get the package delivered to a pickup point, many carriers now offer a predetermined safe dropoff point on your property, and I utilize that as much as I can. Even if I didn’t, I’ve always hated the ones that need a signature, as they used to have to come back multiple times because they tried to deliver during work hours when people were (surprise) at work. Luckily most don’t require a signature these days (and yes, this is in Europe).
I know it is not working with every workplace but I often deliver packages to my work. Most carriers define the delivery time to an hour timeframe, some like ExpressOne are doing it down to 20min time frame with a live tracking showing your courier’s progress to reach you.
I have an unlocked box outside on the street where letters go. That’s where the postman leaves them. Tampering or stealing the mail = 30 years in prison.
nah I prefer them to leave. before covid the post here was notorious for not knocking, and dropping a card meaning you had to go to a post office and collect it in person, but only during business hours, you had to line up behind all the old people who paid bills at the post office, finally get your chance and if you are lucky they would find your parcel, but usually either way they would make out like you are being the biggest inconvenience in the world.
these days they drop and scan, sometimes knock, sometimes not, but it doesn’t matter. havnt had a theft ever
Linux updates: here’s the whole new desktop, GUI, appstore, start menu analog, and you can now summon a demon to do your bidding (no gui yet, you have to use the terminal until next update)
ik. but in the end i had way too many problems with linux on (probably) the worst machine ever made for it so i had to switch back to win*ows
i’m talking like, nothing i did helped raise my battery life past 2h on any linux distro without shutting down the GPU and half of my CPU cores. switching to windows brought it to 7h without compromise…
Your kernel probably wasnt suited for your system. For example I need to use a specialised Kernel to run Linux on my Surface Go, otherwise it overheats :D
i had to manually install the latest drivers because nothing else worked so old drivers isnt a problem. i also tried ubuntu, arch (standalone), garuda (arch based), mint and all had this problem. didnt find any info on lenovolegionlinux so will check it out
what i did find was a lot of people having problems with linux on this exact laptop
Pro tip: don’t ever tell a Thai cook their food isn’t spicy enough. They take their spice seriously, they take pride in it, and they like to dig it in a little if you ask for it spicier.
Based on my experience you can ask for Thai spicy. It also works in Indian restaurants if you ask for Indian spicy. So far I have gotten what I asked for.
My latest experience in my local Indian restaurant resulted in the waiter to double check if we understood what we asked for. Once we got our food he was eyeing us the whole time to see if we would survive haha
I went to an Indian place once and asked the waiter to make my food spicy. It was kinda medium-spicy, and when the waiter asked if it was spicy enough, I–stupid white boy I am–said no. He took the dish back to the kitchen. He returned a little later with the chef. They both watched me take a bite and regret my decision. Through the tears, I told them the Spice was just right. They laughed.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.