I don't think anybody is expecting women to do administrative work on behalf of men's rights. It's more that women tend to react with outright hostility when men advocate for other men.

It's actually the feminists who frequently argue that men need to be fighting for women's issues. I haven't seen the reverse from male advocates, partially because it's quite obvious that such a request would be summarily denied. Men generally just want:

• funding for men's shelters

• sympathy & aid for male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault

• solutions for the growing educational achievement gap

• a discussion about various legal discrepancies when it comes to conscription, marriage, and parental rights and responsibilities.

None of this requires women to assist or flex their institutional power. But when men are systematically denied access and funding for various forms of governmental aid, it seems like certain women are flexing some of their institutional power to prevent men from having access to the same kind of social safety net that women enjoy.

It’s emergency airplane crash logic. Put your own supply of air on before you help the person next to you.

This is a faulty analogy, because men's issues are women's issues and vice versa. It's impossible for women to actually solve their own problems without also solving men's problems. How are women ever going to keep their oxygen masks on if they are surrounded by men who are suffocating and trying to rip the mask from their face? In order to help anyone, you need to help everyone.

To be fair, the men's rights movement is absolutely characterized as alt-right by the mainstream media. People tend to assume all sorts of things about you when you bring up any kind of men's issue. Most people (including other men) have difficulty empathizing with grown men, and thus they subconsciously expect that men's advocates are motivated by something else, such as misogyny. It's hard to move past our biological and cultural tendencies and view men as vulnerable and in need of support.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Trump, Biden, and Bernie are all too old. They could all die at any time, and thus it's not an effective political argument for either side.

The reason why Biden is being attacked from that angle more effectively is because he is showing signs of dementia. That's a whole other issue aside from the likelihood of death.

Uhh, I just explained why. People can argue whatever they want, but the actual behavior and performance of the candidate supercedes their biological age as a barometer for electability.

Also I never said it wouldn't matter, in fact I specifically acknowledged that it would be a talking point, then explained why that wasn't the most important factor at play.

You do realize that age is not a perfect proxy for mental competence? A good number of people remain mentally sharp well into their 90s, while others experience rapid dementia as early as their 60s.

I'm not saying his age wouldn't be a talking point, but I'm damn sure Bernie could express his platform with more clarity and vitality than Biden at this point. Unfortunately I dont think it's a real possibility, but it's stupid to act like the the actual birth date matters. It's the signs of cognitive decline that are problematic.

I dunno what that guy was thinking, but it seems obvious to me that nuclear fusion is the long term solution for energy generation.

Nuclear fission not so much, but it's definitely debatable which has more fundamental flaws between fission and wind/hydro/solar. All renewable energy sources ultimately depend on natural processes which are not reliable or permanent. And they also tend to disrupt the environment to some extent.

Nuclear fission has no such limitations, but instead trades long term risk for short term stability. Basically renewable sources are and always will be somewhat unreliable, and Nuclear fission is the least bad reliable energy source to pair with the renewables. So in the medium term, fission makes a lot more sense than fossil fuels, and in the long term we should be looking to fusion.

Your tone is perfectly fine and you made very good points, thank you for the information.

What a time to be alive

Might as well take this opportunity to point out that beehaw is still defederated from sh.itjust.works. I thought it was a bizarre decision at the time and the fact that it hasn't been reassessed after all this time is even more baffling. Beehaw and SJW are two of the best moderated instances on Lemmy, and yet we aren't federated with each other.

You can view the original announcement from beehaw here and the reaction from SJW here. ~~You'll also note that beehaw has since refederated with lemmy.world.~~

I have been informed that beehaw is still defederated from lemmy.world, my mistake.

Nearly a year later, it's obvious that the decisions of beehaw admins during that critical period of time when redditors were first trying Lemmy were highly disruptive towards the development of the platform as a whole. The first level of disruption came from the direct fragmentation of communities caused by that defederation decision.

The second and more devastating impact was the impact on the perceptions of new users, who were given a manifestation of their worst fears about Lemmy and it's federated structure. Many potential users were turned off Lemmy because they didn't like the fact that they could suddenly be blocked off from major communities on other servers due to arbitrary admin decisions, and beehaw essentially provided the perfect example of that at a critical growth phase.

At the time that they defederated SJW, Beehaw was more that 3 times larger, at about 12k total/3k monthly users. Now, SJW is more than 5 times larger than Beehaw, which has dwindled to just 450 monthly users.

With regard to lemmy.ml, I think the main issue is that beehaw has disabled downvotes. The tankies are significantly outnumbered on Lemmy as a whole and a combination of downvoting and active moderation from other admins effectively minimizes the problem for most other major servers. But because beehaw doesn't allow downvotes, has dwindled to a small userbase, and has isolated itself from other non-extremist servers (SJW), you have been left much more exposed to the tankie propaganda, with your only recourse being the nuclear option of defederation.

Obviously, my point is that beehaw admins should accept that they made a mistake and refederate with sh.itjust.works. I would also recommend upgrading to the latest version of Lemmy, because it at least gives users the option of instance blocking. I understand that you intend to move to Sublinks or another platform in the future, but in the meantime you are neglecting your users by allowing the current implementation on Lemmy to languish.

I don't mean this to be an attack on the beehaw admins, because I think they have done a number of great things for Lemmy and the fediverse and I believe that our objectives are generally aligned. But I feel that I must express these frustrations, because as I have just explained, the actions of the beehaw admins also have direct consequences on fediverse users from other servers.

I think that beehaw admins, not dissimilarly to hexbear admins, tend to disregard how their actions impact the fediverse as a whole and focus solely on the proximate impact on their own userbase. This is a faulty mindset, because the fediverse is the ecosystem which we all share, and that ecosystem needs to be protected and maintained in order for all of the different organisms (instances) residing therein to thrive. Without our connection to the fediverse, all of our instances would simply wither away.

I'm pretty sure it actually is significantly more dangerous. The front end of traditional pickups will still crumple and absorb a great deal of force. If the cybertruck is more rigid and the sharp edges have a potential to gash pedestrians on impact, that's two factors that don't apply to current pickups.

Statistically, IQ follows a standard distribution, so the median and mean should be relatively close.