Brandolini's law, aka the "bullshit asymmetry principle" : the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

Unfortunately, with the advent of large language models like ChatGPT, the quantity of bullshit being produced is accelerating and is already outpacing the ability to refute it.

If you attempt to pressure a witness to destroy evidence...is that witness tampering, evidence tampering, or some other kind of crime? Regardless, throw that one onto the mountain of unprosecuted felony crimes that he's committed.

When I first saw the ads, it sounded dumb and I didn't give it any more thought - I just had no interest in it. But like the author of that article, the more I read/hear about it, the more interested I am in it - especially since it seems to be pissing off all the very same demographics who cause the majority of our modern problems. I'm not sure if I'm willing to pay theater prices to see it, but I'll definitely watch it when it becomes rentable via some streaming services.

It's funny, because my wife and I were just talking about it last night - and she'd mentioned some of this very same stuff.

If it's trained on previous community interaction, it's just going to automatically tell people (in the rudest way possible) their question is a duplicate and kill the thread for each and every new post.

Like any kind of contest, finding rules violations is hard and not foolproof. It's like sports that forbid using steroids - competitors do regularly take those substances while training, then quit taking them for competition and go uncaught. Competitors who are discovered later to have been violating rules are stripped of titles.

That said, I don't think it's a very controversial concept that a beauty pageant shouldn't be a contest about who could afford the best surgeons. Well - as I said earlier I think beauty pageants are absurd to begin with, but if they have to exist I don't think it should be a contest between surgeons.

I think it would have been fair to have a rule saying "no surgical modifications"... because doing things like facelift, nose-job, breast/buttox implants, cheek lifts, wrinkle removal, etc, are obviously unfair advantages (in a beauty contest) for those who have the money pay for it; and having a generic blanket rule like that would have accomplished the same thing they were trying to accomplish without being so blatantly transphobic... so a rule like what they have only proves that they are both despicable AND dumb. The entire notion of beauty pageants is outdated and stupid if you ask me.

they do not discriminate against people who are “too young”.

This is a misrepresentation of what was said. Was that intentional? It sounds like you are trying to inject your own opinion into what you are presenting as factual and unbiased.

The actual quote I think you are referring to is:

That means no adult on our instance is too thin, fat, bald, masculine, old, young, cis, gay, etc., to be sexy, and that includes not discriminating against legal adults that look younger than people think they should. Everyone has a right to lust and to be lusted after.

I've highlighted some key words I think you missed.

What users are voluntarily pro-spez (and by voluntarily, I mean their paychecks aren't jeopardized by dissention)?

I have met plenty of anti-spez users, and I have met plenty of users who just DNGAF, but I have yet to meet a single actual bona fide user who is 'pro-spez'.

This crucially important caveat they snuck in there:

"Prof Scarborough said: “Cherry-picking data on high-impact, plant-based food or low-impact meat can obscure the clear relationship between animal-based foods and the environment."

...which is an interesting way of saying that lines get blurry depending on the type of meat diet people had and/or the quantity vs the type of plant-based diet people had.

Takeaway from the article shouldn't be meat=bad and vegan=good - the takeaway should be that meat can be an environmentally responsible part of a reasonable diet if done right and that it's also possible for vegan diets to be more environmentally irresponsible.

Did you create the attached photo? If so, then I disagree with most of your labeling...and call some of it into question as outright denial of reality.

The world cannot be all puppies and unicorns. But, if that's what you need it to be, there are communities that will serve that purpose and all you need to do is subscribe to those and only browse subscribed.

It would be an inconceivably-massive statistical anomaly if they didn't. But I think a better question is will we ever make contact, and I think the answer to that is that it's inconceivably improbable.

A lot of community types just simply don't work without a minimum critical mass of members.

Imagine asking a programming question on a software development community of just 5 people. You end up with 3 people who aren't active enough to see the question, 1 person sees but doesn't have an answer and doesn't respond (classic lurker), and one person sees it and responds that they don't know the answer. Now imagine a community of 5 thousand people...it's suddenly much more feasible to even bother asking the question.

Sure, fediverse could exist with just 5 people, but it would be worthless and pointless.