https://revolt.chat/

It's open source too.

Strong disagree. Using 'they/them' when you're generally unsure about a person's gender isn't misgendering.

I'm a binary trans woman. If someone is generally unsure about my gender, because it can be ambiguous from time to time, they/them when referring to me is perfectly acceptable. I would suggest most other people are fine with they/them in this instance as well.

Pronouns can be quite a minefield to navigate, especially for those not used to using they/them when all they've ever known is binary terms growing up.

Speaking as an 'elder' trans person, some pronouns in use, which are just as valid as mine!, are genuinely difficult to remember because there are so many of them. I'm talking about the ones that aren't part of the English language in common use. I default to 'they/them' in those instances because using the person's assigned gender at birth would be genuinely hurtful; I don't want to hurt someone.

I feel very much that our own, gender diverse, community is driving those outside of it away by being so strict with/overt policing of pronouns, that those who aren't gender diverse find the whole 'pronoun' thing too complicated, then either refuse to engage with us or deliberately misgender because its easier. This is especially true for older conservative cis people.

... who is benefitting more from social safety nets? Walmart or the worker?

For those who can think critically: Walmart, because they don't pay a living wage for full-time workers

For those who can't think critically: the worker, because they're 'double-dipping' by working full-time and are putting their hand out to receive government benefits.

Ms. Mace is indeed, a cunt.

And I don't mean the jovial mate-ship meaning of the word in Australian vernacular.

Carr continued: "The purpose of the rule is to avoid exactly this type of biased and partisan conduct — a licensed broadcaster using the public airwaves to exert its influence for one candidate on the eve of an election. Unless the broadcaster offered Equal Time to other qualifying campaigns."

Waiting for Fox News to be called out...

Donald Trump had a full-blown meltdown

How many more meltdowns before he becomes an angry puddle of orange faeces?

A new poll shows 56% of Floridians plan to vote for Amendment 4, but unless the measure to enshrine a right to abortion in the state Constitution wins 60% of the vote in November, the state will continue to live under a six-week ban.

So assuming Harris and Walz are going to be more difficult for Netanyahu to negotiate with, does this increase chances of a ceasefire in Gaza?

It's worth actually diving into the details. The reporting is burying key details that are often not quoted, making Kamala sound worse than she is.

I'll say this: people are complicated. Reasonable people are capable of change within themselves.

A lot of people suggest that past actions are indicative of future behaviours. People who assert this are flat out wrong. Look at what Trump promised prior to his election in 2016, then compare it to what he actually did. The same is true of anyone else. What someone did, or didn't do, in the past doesn't exactly prescribe what they will do in future.

People are complicated, and reasonable people are capable of change.

I've read into the Kamala Harris denying surgery for a trans prisoner story a bit. It's worth noting that her role as the attorney general at the time is supposed to represent the state, and is not able to pick and choose battles, irrespective of her beliefs.

She took full responsibility for her actions [out.com article cited above]. Trump has never done this, as far as I can tell.

What is not being quoted above, an omission that makes Kamala look bad on trans issues, is that she actually worked with the relevant departments to change the rules [https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/01/21/harris-takes-full-responsibility-for-briefs-against-surgery-for-trans-inmates/].

Sure, she might have a spotty record though look at her more recent actions. She co-sponsored the Equality Act when she was elected to the U.S Senate.

Even if she was 'against' trans rights, those actions above suggest there's not an 'against' slant now.

Don't take my word for it. Dig out as many articles as you can find, or even transcripts of her debates and speeches.

People are complicated. You can help shape their views. Get involved. Vote. Read deeper into the news, don't take news at face value. It is often spun, and misquoted, to portray a particular point of view whether right or wrong.

(For what it's worth, I'm a gay trans person though I have no horse in the U.S Presidential election as I don't live in the U.S. That said, having witnessed how awful the media have twisted issues and facts in my own country, especially over LGBT issues, I wanted to point out that this whole 'she's spotty on trans rights' is not the whole picture. It's not your fault though, we're constantly fed bullshit to try sway narratives, or to convince people to stay home, which is disastrous in a first-past-the-post voting system).

I've been thinking about this a bit, I'm not sure it's been considered and I may be going out on a random tangent...

Isn't this whole 'immunity' decision just another power grab, or rather further cementing of their power, by SCOTUS? Think about it. They're essentially the arbiter of 'right' and 'wrong' now, as there's no further avenue of appeal save for amending the U.S. Constitution.

Put aside the vagueness of 'official' vs. 'unofficial' acts for a moment.

• Trump did something definitely illegal, and Trump argues was 'official', like his classified records case. Immune.

• Biden did something questionably legal yet unofficial, such as forgetfully retaining classified documents after his tenure as VP (which he immediately returned). Supreme Court decides 'not immune', and some idiot decides to prosecute.

Trump might end up as a king, but the conservative majority of SCOTUS are the kingmakers and protectors.

Or remaining seated whilst the judge leaves the court.

I was skeptical at first though let me tell you, Kagi is so much better. I get exact search terms, which is immensely useful as a programmer, rather than providing results for what Google thinks I want to search for. It's also really, really nice not seeing ads as search results anymore, ad blocker or no ad blocker.

Is it as comprehensive as Google search? It meets about 95-96% of my needs. I still use Google very infrequently for some really obscure domain specific searches if Kagi doesn't find anything useful, though that's getting rarer and rarer.

It's also easy to block AI generated sites that pop up providing just enough likeness, but really are regurgitated AI trash, or are 'Wikipedia clones'.

I have no financial interest in Kagi, other than paying to use it. It has certainly been worth it for me.