zqps

Everything you claim to do here can be done safely, which I condone and have done myself. The way you go about it, you’ve chosen to be a serious danger to others for absolutely no good reason, while lying to yourself that it’s okay because you’re doing them a favor.

Go to hell.

I told you I don’t care what you do with your own mind and body.

But if you don’t care that you’re putting other people in danger of serious harm, then you’re a horrible person.

Do with your own life whatever you want, but don’t give dangerous advice to people who may trust you and don’t know better.

If you’re all about fun, guess what, even just a bad trip ruins that too.

Yeah that’s fun. But I bet you had people to tell you what to expect and how to be reasonably safe.

“Try all drugs” will get people to try Heroin or Fentanyl and fuck themselves up for life in an evening. Don’t do that. We have a responsibility towards each other, especially towards newbies.

The distinction may seem like nitpicking but no, CSAM is a legally defined term of depictions of actual children being sexually abused.

This game does not feature any such content. Not just because there are no depictions of real children, but also because the fictional children depicted aren’t subjected to sexual abuse.

Valve’s language cites “sexual conduct” which in this case reportedly (I didn’t watch it myself) has been stretched to include nudity that is non-sexual in nature.

I get why Valve would err on the side of caution, but that TOS decision is no basis to turn around and make the legally relevant claim that the game features actual CSAM.

FYI there’s scripts that will fully activate windows, not via any local modifications to the OS, but via the official Microsoft activation servers.

I’m already looking for USB-powered devices for stuff like electric razors and flashlights. Check out Wurkkos for example.

With toothbrushes the problem is seemingly the duopoly. If there is a good USB-chargeable alternative to Oral-B, please let me know.

Did you maybe start with online dating? That’s where the transactional thing really is omnipresent and it sucks.

I think this is a joke about the first copper-tier sponsor.

Which would that be?

It’s not. Roundabouts work better than intersections.

The whole game can even be read as propaganda against car-centric traffic management, because road planning just becomes a nightmare at some point that incentivizes you heavily to diversify into public transportation and even walkable city blocks.

Home Office can also really suck if you don’t have a dedicated workspace at home. Spending 10-12 hours at the same place with no reason to leave the home for days can really fuck with your emotional state.

So in short, this question could have been used in all sorts of ways to provide an answer that clarified the commenter’s position.

I mean, in the way it was asked not really. It was explicitly asked, or rather condescendingly demanded, as a simple binary choice stripped of all context.

That’s not how you engage with someone when you actually want to get their take on a complex issue. That’s how you engage if you want to score an easy win for upvotes. And I for one am done with that kinda hostile “debate bro” culture / popularity contest that’s defined many subreddits over the years. It shuts down any chance for an actual exchange. So let’s not act surprised at the result.

I know it’s a quote. So considering that nazis are a subset of fascists, what’s “LMAO” about saying that not all fascists are nazis? It is a simple logical conclusion of the first statement.

Yeah. So it is as I said, it seems you got the order mixed up here. This comment makes no sense otherwise.

https://vger.to/lemmy.ml/comment/22310543

Yeah it was asked in bad faith and framed in a manipulative way.

That’s not a good thing and should be called out, no matter if you disagree with the person it was directed at. It’s called integrity.

Yea and not all dogs are poodles. I think you got the order confused further up.

Yes, it’s a dogs vs poodles thing. Shouldn’t be so hard to understand.

The question itself was a cheap gotcha. Shockingly, it’s not as simple as that as I’ve been pointing out. Which you’d acknowledge if you were arguing in good faith.

It’s unfortunate that any attempt to insert some nuance automatically makes me the enemy in your simplistic position on the matter. And now ego prevents you from backing off of this kind of thinking by any means, no matter what toxic and regressive conclusions it takes you to.

I didn’t say the people of South Korea are being subjugated. Not sure how I could have made clearer that these are two separate issues.

You also won’t find me defending NK. Not everything should devolve into tribalism and dunking on whatever we perceive as the other team. Which is exactly what I’m criticizing about this question and the way it was asked.