Im not entirely sure i understood everything but is donation the solution you’re looking for?

I see what you mean, in your case as well as mine, Reaper is far more powerful and so far more adequate to our needs But people do not always search for powerful software. Sometimes they only want something easy to learn, with only basic tasks but well performed and entirely free. When you have these requirements, Audacity is better

Not at the moment, from what I know

Eh, what you say is interesting actually. Still, imo it does not change any of what has been said prior to that, you still made a scene to complain about people “making a scene”, and you still complained “we have the right to talk” while defending someone saying trans should stop talking.

This being said and put apart, i can identify two points in your comment.

1. You do not think people should care about trans rights, because in your opinion they are not threatened, and they should be considered as anyone else.
2. You have a huge problem with children having access to medical transition. (Not said in a bad way, but given that half your message is about this very precise point of the whole more diverse notion that are transgender and transsexuality, and that it is “all (you) have to say about”, it really seems the main, if not the only, issue for you).

For the 1st point :

• There are two types of violence. let’s call them blind violence and targeted violence. First one can strike anyone, anywhere, both you and trans people. Second one can only strike targeted peoples and communities, like trans, and maybe groups of people you belong to, or are considered to belong to (religions, origins, etc.). It’s very difficult to prevent blind violence, by it’s very nature. But targeted violence is more easy to prevent, precisely because it’s easier to identify potential targets and potential criminals. Targeted violence is also more massive. That’s why people try to care about communities which are targets of violence, as trans are, and as many other are, sadly.
• You make a difference between trans rights and your own rights. What about that trans rights are your rights ? You have the right to change gender, you have the right to have medical help about that, and so on. Trans do not have more rights, you have the same as them. Just because you do not need it does not mean it’s not your rights. You don’t know where your life will lead you, maybe you’ll need it at some point.
• You seem to have a specific definition of “diverse”, which i don’t understand. I cannot really guess why you do not find Lemmy “diverse”. If you consider that “diverse” means a place where you can say you don’t like trans, well first you actually can, and then it’s not really what i would call diverse. To me, diversity is different from freedom of speech. Diversity -> you can produce “positive” things, meaning they have a meaning on their own. Freedom of speech -> you can produce “negative” things, meaning you can disagree with someone/something. To sum it up : imo criticism isnt diversity, it’s more on the freedom of speech spectrum. And in any case, you can criticize a lot here on Lemmy.
• I dont really know which are the “issues we should be up in arms about”. If your true goals are freedom, happiness and healthiness, well the actual fate of trans people should be your concern, because they are the target of specific violence so more violence than the average (happiness–), the right of switching genders is at stake in many countries (freedom–) and their handling by health professional is also in danger (healthiness–). There are others matters that are as important, and we can even say more important, i would agree on that. But why on earth would you argue that everything is going fine for trans people and that they should shut up, while on the same time saying you are defending happiness and freedom of speech ?

For the 2nd point :

• As i said, it seems very specific. Kid surgery is a hot topic, even in trans communities, and that is not at all what is the most important in trans struggle. So it seems a bit unfair to focus that much on it.
• You should not call medical transition “cosmetic surgery”, because it’s not what it is, it’s actually considered therapy, as it is meant to prevent bad effects on your health. Your body is not the only thing to consider, your mental health matters too. If you can help a kid avoiding suicide and madness thanks to medicine, it is therapy, not cosmetic surgery. (You can be against this kind of therapy though, but you dont need it to be considered cosmetic surgery to be against).
• As i said before, all kids remain equal in rights in this case. they all get access to the same therapies, and all are banned from cosmetic surgery.
• One of the problem people try to avoid by changing sex is gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the fact of having mental issues due to your body. So it is both a physical and a psychological problem, your body is in the heart of the problem, so changing it is one of the solutions.
• Still, you can say that for any ethics reasons you should not change a kid’s sex. I do not agree but yeah, sure, that’s your opinion. Is this one disagreement really enough for you to defend that trans should stop talking about their issues, that they are the real problem and that you are the good guy by telling them to shut up ? I mean, from a logical point of view, it’s obviously wrong, you cannot pass from one to the other. But i even struggle to understand how a single point like this can make you that much tired of hearing about trans. I must confess that i strongly suspect that though this is all that you have to say, it is not all you think, and that you have many more disagreement that you wish to keep for yourself.

Im sorry my answer is so long, i already shortened it as much as i could. Sorry if this a problem for you. Two things i want to acknowledge “quickly” :

• Being trans is not something you want or choose, as a lot of what you said seems to imply. It’s not just what you think, it’s what you are, and you have very little power about it, like our cis identity (i presume you are cis, sorry if not). This plus the fact that our societies are more hostile towards trans people makes it logical that they should deserve a specific medical care, because they cannot change how they feel by the only power of their will.
• All what you said is your point of view, and i respect that. I advise you to try and consider though, that it might hurt peoples. Not a lot of course, but that’s the problem with systemic hate : even little and peaceful disagreements, when put together, can become a huge moral burden. Of course the solution is not for you to shut up. Continue to express yourself. But if you just think about how it can hurt people, i truly believe that it can help you expressing your point of view while caring for the people it could hurt, and so making it less hurtful. And if you feel too overwhelmed by anything else, or too lazy to think about this, well, i happily admit that it’s not a huge deal, there are bigger problems out here.

Yeah, i kinda agree with you, social media violence is “not” violence, or at least a lesser violence. This was my point : trans are the target of true violence, while being tired of hearing about them is not being target of true violence. This asymmetry may be the cause of that much people disagreeing with you.

On the up/downvote origin, you are right, i did not knew it. Everytime i have seen it used, and so everytime i used it, it was as a like/dislike option. You genuinely are the first person i see complaining about it, so i considered you wrong on this, my bad. But the idea still remains in a different way : though you are technically right, maybe you still can consider that using up/down as like/dislike is a common thing to do.

On the Facebook point, i do not know. It is rather a “like” system than a “like/dislike” : there isn’t really a way to disagree with a statement (the “angry” emoji being the closest, but it just conveys that you are angry, not if you agree with the com or not).

Well, let’s take it as a personal opinion then. Now here’s mine : people seeking attention by complaining about supposedly attention seekers are double losers, first because of my judgment, and second because of their own judgment.

I mean, you mocked them using the exact reasoning you criticize them for, like “making a show of being hated -> attention seeker”. But ok, let’s forget about that. You may consider that you are actually mocking communities that are the target of true violence, not just downvotes. Like they get hurt, killed, harassed, even by administrations and systems ? Maybe that’s the reason for your downvotes. And did you realized that this is really the main use of downvotes ? Just a quick way to react. If you agree/like, upvote. If you do not agree/dislike, downvote. It’s very simple really. Either you don’t get that, either you are mocking people for using tools the way they were intended to. Both ways seem dumb to me. If you want a place that do not allows this quick reactions that are up/downvotes, well maybe switch for other platforms that are not designed around it ?

Wtf is this argument ? Are you at the same time validating “Ugh trans people are attention seeker, they think they deserve it because people hate on them” and “Hey look at us, we are the heroes of this story because people on internet disagree with us” ? I know i already replied to your other comments, but it’s funny it’s the same in both case : you just do what you criticize other people for supposedly doing

Eh, in general i agree with you, but i think in this case it could be considered as “ironic”. Like someone complains “I’m tired of hearing about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”, and someone replies “Im’ tired of hearing complaints about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”. I think we all agree that the argument is not really good in any case, but as the second one was a reply, maybe we can see it as an application of first comment’s logic to itself.

Ok, if you want some info here is a little summary :

• Banning people condamned for bullying/hate speech from every social media they used for it
• Blocking websites (mostly porn) without judge’s approval, both physically and by forcing navigators/DNS to block it
• More ID checking to “protect minor”

And if you want details :

The current proposition of law is a melting pot of many Internet security subjects :

• preventing children to access porn
• punishing websites that host pedo porn harder
• punishing deepfake and ai generated montage (and montages in general)
• preventing hate speech and violent speech in all social media, including chat applications
• regulating the market of cloud storage providers
• regulating gambling and real-money video games
• preventing phishing

They have different actions at their disposal :

• Fines for website admins who do not comply
• Forcing websites to check people’s identity to prevent minor accessing harming content
• Forcing websites to ban some accounts suspected of illegal activity
• Forcing websites to try and block a suspected person (not the user) from using/creating any accounts on their website (for max. 6 months to 1 year)
• Forcing navigators, DNS providers and Internet compagnies to block any access to a specific domain for max 3 months, if this domain does not comply in (short) time to the administration instructions
• Forcing websites to mention the name and adress of any person or company that host their content
• Forcing apps markets to remove an app that does not comply to the administration instructions
• It would be mandatory for vpn ads to always display a message that says something like “Pirating contents harms artistic creation” (does not have a lot to do with the rest, but it find it interesting anyway)
• It would be mandatory for any content sharing website to stock datas enabling the identification of anyone who participated in the content creation
• Easier police raid in places where content is hosted (no judge approval needed, they just get notified of the raid)

Now, i did not hear from this subject a lot, mostly for the pornography part since we probably soon will have to show ID cards to watch porn. I remember that everytime there are more or less violent protests, government says it originates from social media and that they have to control social media to prevent violences. Most politicians i heard on this seem to not fully understand what is at stake, which is kinda usual.

Okay, je crois que j’y vois plus clair, merci pour les explications.

Si j’ai bien compris, pour vous l’essence du boycott, c’est l’organisation et la revendication qu’il y a derrière, et pas le simple fait qu’une ou plusieurs personnes décide de ne plus acheter chez untel.

J’en ai effectivement un usage différent, notamment parce que je n’ai pas de terme alternatif qui me vienne pour désigner un arrêt collectif et soudain de la fréquentation d’un commerçant, mais aussi parce que je l’entends être utilisé comme ça autour de moi.

J’ai toujours du mal à comprendre l’intérêt de la distinction par contre, pas seulement parce que je l’utilise pas mais aussi parce que pour moi c’est pas le coeur du sujet. Boycott ou “simple” méfiance, dans les deux cas les gens se méfient, et c’est ça qui me semble être le problème : le boulanger a subi des attaques verbales et matérielles qui ont conduit à la fermeture de sa boulangerie faute de client.

(ceci dit, je comprends mieux si c’est juste un réflexe de grammairien énervé, ça m’arrive aussi fréquemment, c’est juste que comme j’utilise pas le mot dans le même sens, ça me paraît pas évident)

De l’ostracisation, c’est plus fort, non ? C’est quand une personne est exclue d’un groupe. Là, il n’a pas été exclu d’un groupe auquel il appartenait, il n’a pas été banni de la ville, on ne lui a pas interdit l’accès aux magasins. On a “juste” arrêté d’acheter ses produits, ce qui correspond au pendant pratique du boycott.

Pour la question de trancher, je ne vois pas trop sur quoi et pourquoi on aurait besoin de trancher. J’ai aussi l’impression que tu opposes différentes causes possibles (soit un harcèlement boycott / soit un mauvais comportement). Mais d’une part, les deux ne semblent pas incompatibles, et d’autre part, dans tous les cas, il y a une forme de boycott (ou d’ostracisation, si tu y tiens). Peu importe la raison, il semble y avoir eu de fait une baisse massive de fréquentation dans sa boulangerie.

Au final, je ne vois toujours pas pourquoi l’idée de boycott est remise en doute : déjà parce que ça semble évident que les gens ont arrêté de venir chez lui, et ensuite parce que l’alternative que tu proposes (l’ostracisation) me paraît équivalente au boycott. Ca ne change pas vraiment le problème qu’il ait été victime de boycott ou d’ostracisation, si ?

J’aime beaucoup la philosophie des sceptiques, accepter de tout remettre en cause, mais pour l’instant j’ai l’impression qu’on pose juste un doute comme ça, sans aller plus loin et je vois pas à quoi ça sert, j’avoue que ça me perturbe.

C’est cool que ton commentaire soit nuancé, effectivement c’est des sujets tendus et on a tendance à lire ce qu’on craint. Par contre, y’a un aspect que je ne m’explique toujours pas, même en relisant.

Si je comprends bien, tu avances :

• qu’il n’y aurait pas eu de boycott, et que ça ne suffirait donc pas à expliquer la situation, il faudrait un autre élément (simple supposition de ta part, sans accuser qui que ce soit de mensonge ou autre)
• que se plaindre de racisme suscite la méfiance des gens (en le présentant simplement comme un fait, et même un fait malheureux)

Pour moi, ces deux éléments ne sont pas vraiment compatibles : la méfiance des gens constitue un boycott en soi (on peut en discuter, peut-être pas au sens strict de boycott organisé, mais en tout cas, du point de vue du boulanger, le résultat et le ressenti est le même). J’ai du mal à saisir comment on peut douter du boycott si on est convaincu de la méfiance des gens.

Mais je ne suis pas certain d’avoir bien compris ton commentaire : est-ce que j’ai loupé un truc ?

Pour avoir fait les JMJ il y a quelques années, j’ai bien ressenti ce côté conservateur, et surtout du côté des français-es, les gens d’autres pays que j’ai rencontrés étaient vraiment plus cool. Après, j’étais parti avec un contingent de cathos orléanais-es (donc bien bien cathos), et il y avait sans doute la barrière de la langue avec les autres nationalités.

Mais quand même, ça colle bien avec l’explication de Raison du Cleuziou : j’ai eu le sentiment que les jeunes polonais-es, qui vivent dans une société hyper religieuse, tenaient moins aux traditions que les français-es avec qui j’étais parti.

Par contre, ce qui est marrant c’est que c’est aussi une grosse expérience collectiviste : tout le monde a la même nourriture, les mêmes conditions de vie, on marche des kilomètres en groupe pour dormir par terre avec des centaines de milliers de personnes, etc. Et personne pour râler que “C’est littéralement le communisme bla bla bla”

La religion est rigide par essence

Je ne suis pas si sûr, surtout si on ne se centre pas sur la religion catholique. Pour avoir été chez cathos et protestants, ces derniers sont quand même beaucoup plus souples sur énormément de sujets, et la forme de cathé que j’ai expérimenté coté protestant était vraiment différente.

Même, elle rassemble les deux aspects (ludique et pédagogique) que tu sembles opposer pour le cathé catho : on lisait des textes religieux, on en discutait ensemble, ça partait même en débat philosophique parfois. Et d’un autre côté, on faisait des créations, notamment créer un spectacle de Noël, avec des sketchs qui parodient des passages de la bible ou des trucs du style.

Et tout le reste était comme ça, moins dogmatique et plus terre-à-terre (sans dire que c’est forcément mieux, juste que c’est différent). Le culte (équivalent de la messe) était pas forcément fixe dans son déroulé, il y avait parfois des interventions qui se rajoutaient, des passages que le pasteur enlevait, etc. Par contre, ce qui était plus fixe, c’était qu’à la sortie, il y avait du thé et du café et tout le monde pouvait discuter.

Bref, j’y ai senti énormément moins de rigueur, moi qui était déjà non-croyant je m’y suis senti à ma place et j’avais beaucoup moins l’impression qu’on m’imposait quoi que ce soit. Et pourtant, la foi des gens là-bas était très prégnante, il y avait un esprit de communauté très fort.

Je pense que pour le coup, le catholicisme est beaucoup plus rigide (c’est même pour ça que le protestantisme existe), et sans trop m’y connaître je dirais que c’est similaire à d’autres courants, genre christianisme orthodoxe, islam, judaïsme. Et qu’à l’inverse, d’autres religions sont moins guindées, genre protestantisme, hindouisme, bouddhisme (encore une fois, j’y connais vraiment rien à part catho et protestants, c’est juste mes impressions).

Ooook, merci de l’explication :D !

Et encore quelques vies brisées pour des morales à deux balles, ça me file la gerbe

Question secondaire, mais c’est quoi un tanky du FN ?

Ca donne l’impression que c’est de l’IA en tout cas !

J’ai vu que le pilote, mais il était vraiment cool ! Les personnes derrière ont géré sur l’utilisation des IA

Je me laisse souvent perdre dans les recommandations, quitte à aller assez loin, ça m’arrive de tomber sur des petites perles comme ça