on many communities and instances

Bingo!

We have no ambition of being more lenient than Reddit, it’s just less centralized. If people want to be bigots they can find themselves an instance and a community for that, and other people can choose not to be exposed to their bullshit. That’s the whole point.

Also, the UKSC judgment is a pseudo-scientific piece of junk. Agreeing with it is a big-ass red flag.

In your experience, has Russia grown more hostile towards trans people?

If yes, when? Did it got worse when Putin started going after “gay propaganda” and LGBTQ+ rights, or is Russia also caught up in the west’s recent obsession with going after trans people?

Yeah, that would be the better thing to do, but women tend to have been trained to try to salvage men’s fragile emotions in situations like this.Especially when similar things happen in real life it’s all about trying to escape without making the man upset/escalating the situation, and a text message from someone you know can feel similar.

I don’t think it’s a good thing to try to maintain civility, but I think it’s the natural and understandable reaction from anyone who is not prepared for this kind of situation.

I think it’s a common pattern that men do unacceptable things and that women are left questioning their own behaviour afterwards. On a societal level I think it contributes to a shortage of accountability for men.

It’s a normal photo of you looking normal in a normal dress. It’s not that he couldn’t find juicier things on the internet, he just finds random pictures of you to be exciting because he knows it’s wrong. Combine that with an apparent lack of impulse control and you got yourself a nice little red flag.

There’s no point in looking for something you did “wrong” here. It’s not about the photo, and it’s not about your response. It’s about him, and nothing else.

There’s no picture you could have posted on Instagram which would have made this somehow your fault. Women post bikini pictures in social media all the time without it being an open invitation for harassment.

It’s not like he had some sort of master plan with this. He just found it exciting to be creeping off to instagram pictures of his wife’s sister, and figured he could take it to the next level by contacting you about it. The fact that it’s a fundamentally bad idea is part of what makes it exciting to him.

Stunning. No bra I guess? A bit risky but very elegant.

How the fuck is one supposed to respond to this bullshit? We try to avoid uncomfortable situations even after other people have already created them, so we tend to entertain people a bit too long.

Of course in retrospect it would have been better to not engage with him at all, but it’s hard to completely understand what’s going on at the spot, and as humans we feel a need to respond.

Don’t be mad at yourself. You’re not the creep here.

What is it like?

For me, it’s my favourite thing in the world. I feel more at home when I’m in the middle of the mountains not having seen people for days than when I’m in any building I’ve ever lived in. We evolved for these conditions, and at least for some of us it resonates with our souls - much like the ocean calls to others.

The experience of hiking is a bit like running, just dragged out over days. In the beginning you have energy. At some point you get tired, and you might want to stop for a while and you’re worried if you’re going to make it. And then you push through, and suddenly your body is in walking mode. So don’t get too worried if you start feeling tired early in the hike.

As for the tent, the experience varies a lot. Is it raining? Are there lots of mosquitoes or midges? Is it cold? Are you walking until sunset, or do you have time at the camp site? What is the terrain you put your tent on?

You generally don’t have the answer to those questions. I have had a wide variety of experiences in tents - crazy tent pole-breaking winds, thunderstorms beyond anything I believed was possible, floods, cows trying to graze underneath the tent in the middle of the night. Most of the time though the biggest event is waking up to the view, or going out to take a leak at night and enjoying the night sky.

The important thing is to always be flexible and open to improvise. When you’re in up there you’re at the mercy of the mountain, and you adjust your plans accordingly. Many mountain folks believe that the mountain has a will of its own that needs to be respected, and I don’t hink it’s too far from reality. Following from that is that the experience is never completely predictable, which is part of what makes its appeal infinite.

Enjoy!

I would have interpreted it as “well duh, where would I be hiding a bra in that picture”, but I guess it’s open for interpretation. In either case the problem here is his message, not your response. It’s pretty clear you’re not exactly eager to engage.

Yeah, it’s a total breach of trust towards both you and your sister, and you have every reason to be upset by it and to take your distance from him.

It’s fucked in many ways - that you’ve known each other since you were twelve, that he chooses to creep on his partners sister for some reason, that he chooses to send creepy texts to women behind her back, and that he is creeping people out by sending weird texts at all. There’s a lot to be upset about and little to tolerate here.

Your response is normal. We try to avoid conflict.

Your sister’s reaction is not so strange - he betrayed her and revealed himself as a total creep, but it’s a lot to process so it’s easier for her to pin it on you than to reevaluate her entire life. It’s a normal reaction and part of the psychology making abusive and unhealthy relationships possible.

My recommendation would be to not allow men to be passive bystanders to their creepy behaviour. He is the problem here, and your sister is going through something where it’s hard to think straight. Try to be patient with her. If this becomes primarily a conflict between you and your sister he has succeeded in replicating some extremely formalistic bullshit.

Also looking at the projects he has created, saying that he has not delivered anything seems a bit… Imprecise.

Every project I know of on the Fediverse is a work in progress, and it’s always a question of prioritization. But Dansup has created, and continues to create, some amazing stuff. Even if he sometimes gets a bit ahead of himself in advertising stuff.

Constitutionalism is based around the idea of having a legal system of two layers - ordinary day to day law, and a deeper more profound law that somehow matters more and should be harder to change.

The US pioneered the idea of having a constitution from which the branches of government derives their power and that sets the rules of the game.

In the UK, all laws are technically of equal value, and the system instead relies heavily on tradition and obscure institutions like the monarchy and house of lords. They don’t have a constitution, though of course they have laws that constitutes the law of the land. It’s not necessarily a bad thing - if laws existed for hundreds of years, it might be because they do some good or at least limited harm.

German constitutionalism is largely built around the ideas of Kelsen, and is very much a system of constitutionalism. That they opted for the word Grundgesetz instead of Verfassung for the legal text is of course interesting, but who interprets this text other than the BundesVERFASSUNGSgericht? It’s a constitution, they just named it the basic law. Reflecting precisely this two-level system of laws that constitutionalism is designed around, and that the UK lacks.

What should and should not go into constitutions is an ongoing debate of course, but I haven’t heard anyone argue for provisions about sparkling wine. Sadly.

England still doesn’t have a constitution. It’s just a pile of old laws.

Yeah, that’s fair. I believe if one should have an almost religious approach to the constitution, it is important to be able to interpret it in light of the current day. But you are right that the best solution is not necessarily to allow dynamic interpretation, but to leave religion outside of politics and focus on creating good laws.

I guess a less extreme solution is the one we’re all currently looking at. I’m posting from PieFed which more or less works from freaking Lynx.

I’m trying to stop using the bloated web entirely, and it’s easier than I thought it would be.

I’d love to get into Gemini, but I’ve found the challenges of hosting a Gemini site too great to overcome. It’s a fun space to look around in some times.

Thomas Jefferson believed the constitution should be a living document.

“let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be, nature herself indicates”

Nature itself dictates so through the length of a generation: If the constitution outlives human, we end up being ruled by the dead rather than by the living, as a democracy presupposes.

One could assume this would mean that they should last a lifetime, but in a letter to James Madison, Jefferson expresses the belief that each generation have the right to their own:

Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right

This was the ideas of a central founding father of American democracy. Yet today, authoritarian tools in the supreme court are using their perceived legislative intent of the founding fatgers to justify all kinds of fucked up shit. The intent of the founding fathers was that the nation should move the fuck on and not be stuck in the past.

It, uhm, predicts tokens?

If calling it a word predictor is oversimplifying, I mean.

No need to worry about loneliness – Zuck is working on some really sophisticated chatbots for that. As for the future, I don’t think there’s much of it left to worry about at this point. ☀️

Constitutionalism is a new idea. Pioneered by America. Of course America will have the oldest until it collapses.

Under dagens lover kan en skole fint flagge med FN-flagg 24. oktober, om de skulle ønske å markere FN-dagen. For eksempel. Og det burde de få lov til, om de skulle ønske det.

Grunnen til at KrF ønsker å få dette til å handle om pride er fordi de mener pride er “for politisk”. Jeg er sterkt uenig: Friheten til medborgerne mine skal ikke være et politisk spørsmål, det skal være en selvfølge.

Å forby skoler fra å markere andre anledninger enn hva man kan gjøre med tre forskjellige flagg er i overkant autoritært uten noen god grunn. Skolen skal vær det sted hvor man lærer om ulike ting og får nye impulser, ikke et sted hvor vi læres opp til å bli nøyaktige kopier av hverandre.

Dette handler ikke om regnbueflagget vs FN-flagget - KrF vil forby begge i skolegården. At du ønsker å overbevise deg selv om at dette er konfliktlinjen er i seg selv interessant.

Gud forby. Bokstavelig talt.