![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0943eca5-c4c2-4d65-acc2-7e220598f99e.png)
Looking back I don’t see anything I wrote, that says they should move
This you?
I would talk to her about looking for someplace to live she does feel safe.
Gaslighting me in a thread about gaslighting… Brilliant
Looking back I don’t see anything I wrote, that says they should move
This you?
I would talk to her about looking for someplace to live she does feel safe.
Gaslighting me in a thread about gaslighting… Brilliant
It’s a response to your second paragraph which is “she’s not gaslighting you and you should reward her abusive behaviour by moving to a nicer neighborhood”.
No, this is abuse. Being scared of where you live doesn’t justify abusing your partner. Missing someone’s text doesn’t justify this kind of behaviour. The silent treatment is abusive and not the way mature adults communicate with their partners. The fact that he calls the attention seeking follow up “the usual” also shows the extent of the problem, especially when it’s pretty clear she expects him to provide the “correct” response. This post has so many red flags I thought it was a communist party parade.
The best part about this is that UMG WMG and SMG all simultaneously went “you can’t take an artist’s life work and exploit it, that’s unfair, it’s OUR job to take an artist’s life’s work and exploit it”
AI isn’t “like a person” it doesn’t “learn like a person” it doesn’t “think like a person” it’s nothing like a person. It’s a a machine that creates copies of whatever you put into it. It’s a machine that a real person, or group of people, own. These people TAKE all the stuff everyone else created and put it into their copy machine.
In fact it’s really easy to show that it’s a copy machine because the less stuff you put into it the more of a direct copy you get out of it. If you put only one song, or one artist, into it then virtually everything it creates would be direct copyright infringements. If you put all of the worlds music into it the copying becomes more blurred, more complex, more interesting, and therefore more valuable.
Sure AI is a great innovation, but if someone wants to put my work into a copying machine they’re going to have to acquire it from me legally.
No one is against AI, we’re just against the people who own the AI machines stealing our work without paying for it.
I think you’re mixing copyright which protects works and patients which protect inventions as well as the timelines.
How does that “zero out”. A bunch of upper and middle managers embezzling millions somehow cancels the harm of not paying, usually the lowest paid employees, their fair earned wages?
Explain the logic there?
It’s fucked up, Zionists say “all Jews support Israel because Israel IS Judaism” then when a Jewish person is attacked for what Israel does they say “see, it’s the proof they’re anti-semites, they attacked a Jewish person outside of Israel, if they were truly only against Israel they wouldn’t have done that”
Zionists are literally using all foreign Jews as human shields. Putting them up as defacto Israeli representatives, then as martyrs.
Yeah, big corporate landlords are a problem. Stopping all landlords from jacking up prices is a good thing. This can build momentum for more effective legislation for corporate landlords.
One more time for the slow people I guess:
Housing can’t be affordable AND a good investment. Investments have to grow above inflation. Affordable things CAN’T grow above inflation.
Nah. Property tax is good. It pays for better community spaces and services. Better roads, local infrastructure, public transit, schools. It probably didn’t go up very much if at all as a percentage of your property value. They likely just reassessed your property value and they’ve doubled since before COVID. It’s completely normal for taxes to go up with property value.
Insurance etc… yeah, a call would be nice
More people were killed in the firebombing.
The theory that more people would have died of the nukes weren’t dropped is FAR from settled fact. The Japanese were already looking to surrender and it’s not likely the bomb played a big part in that decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki?wprov=sfla1
Regardless it’s nothing to get banned over, that’s for sure.
Gender is the idea that different sexes should have different appearances, clothing, roles, tasks, etc.
For example women have long hair, wear make up and dresses. If a man did that they would be breaking gender norms. None of those 3 behaviors are biological. Another society could have those 3 things reversed and be otherwise identical.
The fact gender is a social construct isn’t that complicated.
The headline is a bit misleading. What it should say is that “men who score low toxic masculinity traits are more likely to seek enthusiastic/affirmative consent”. Which is a bit of a “duh” thing.
Even the authors admit that passive response is normative consent, and as much as I love enthusiastic consent, a lot of men AND women feel very awkward when you try that paradigm since they’re used to normative human sexuality. That’s especially prevalent with older men and women like millennials and gen X. Escalating sexual behaviour with passive consent is different from escalating without consent or against consent. Perhaps when affirmative/enthusiastic consent is normalized, we can have a different conversation.
“A passive response to a sexual advance is a normative indicator of consent, but also might reflect distress or fear, and whether men are able to differentiate between the two during a hookup was important to explore,” said Mattson.
That’s the exact point. In a future study they’ll be able to see if men who score high in toxic masculinity traits are more likely to not notice or actively ignore distress or fear.
I honestly suspect yes since empathy is not a valued trait in performative toxic masculinity, but with science it’s unwise to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions, like this headline does.
Oh yeah, that was a real stupid moment in this guy’s life. No defending that. And having that on video is just awesome! This guy will never live this down lol
I’m really torn about this. He’s in jail now for driving without a license. That in itself doesn’t harm anyone. It could very well be that he just didn’t have the money to renew his driver’s license. Doesn’t seem like the kind of thing deserving of jail time by itself. As for the driving, in a lot of places it’s not possible to keep a job, or go to the doctors office, without a car.
That being said, since he doesn’t have a license, his insurance, even if he had any, is void and therefore he is a liability. He clearly isn’t going to stop driving when he isn’t legally entitled to.
In a society where driving isn’t often optional, I feel like the law is more callous than necessary. I don’t have a solution though. Maybe drivers licenses could be free so that your license would only be suspended for cause?
The video is absolutely hilarious though. The comedic timing is as good as a sitcom. No marks.
Stores in most developed countries, UK included, can refuse service only for legitimate reasons, and they have to do so uniformly based on fair and unbiased rules. If they don’t, they’re at risk of an unlawful discrimination suite.
https://www.milnerslaw.co.uk/can-i-choose-my-customers-the-right-to-refuse-service-in-uk-law
She didn’t do anything that would be considered a “legitimate reason”, and although applied uniformly, it’s difficult to prove that an AI model doesn’t discriminate against protected groups. Especially with so many studies showing the opposite.
I think she has as much standing as anyone to sue for discrimination. There was no legitimate reason to refuse service, AI models famously discriminate against women and minorities, especially when it comes to “lower class” criminal behavior like shoplifting.
Not really. Either way you’re not listening. In one case you’re not listening as a group.
You ever get tired of shilling for genocide?
They’re literally saying that now.
We’re afraid of the threat that they’ll keep doing what they’re doing right now. Why? They’re already doing it. We’re idiots for letting it affect our decisions.