I think your comment reads quite combative.

I think with the context of the Meme, yes there are some people who call you and you just know its gonna be a huge annoying phone call that you should just avoid and text the person after because some people just wanna talk your ears off.

I dunno if we have to do the: omg millenials/gen alpha is too phone anxious thing.

And sure its called a mobile phone, but as an argument that feels somewhat pedantic nowadays. Primarily its a mobile internet connected computer nowadays I would say. I use the camera/ texting/ social media functions way more than the real phone capabilities. Maybe thats different for you but I don’t think it’s uncommon that its one of the lesser used functions.

Sure if people are too anxious to pick up the phone and it negatively impacts their life they should get help for it. I don’t think we should shame them in that case though. It feels to me like shaming depressed people when they cannot find the energy to shower, which I would similarly feel is inadequate input.

Ich hätte jetzt nicht erwartet, dass die Wirtschaftswoche einen so langen scharfen und vorwerfenden Artikel gegen Merz rausbringen würde :D

Vor allem die Vorwürfe und Verfehlungen der letzten Wochen nochmal so einzuarbeiten.

Ich denke aber auch, dass ich nicht sehe, dass Merz so gut ist im Taktieren oder generell in der Lage wirklich gute Koalitionen zu bilden geschweige denn vorausschauend zu planen oder Probleme wirklich anzugehen.

Aber das fühle ich bei der ganzen CxU schon nicht von daher ist es vielleicht auch nicht sonderlich nennenswert als Einwurf. Es werden/bleiben wilde Zeiten :(

Agreed especially on the comment as a showcase of „mod differences“.

I think this just rather corroborates Ada‘s statement of how there were multiple reports the mods did not follow up on and how Ada had to eventually always do it.

So even with a good faith reading I do not see how this is a problematic ban and not just a common recurring topic which this instance has always protected us from, which is the whole reason I am on this instance.

While I understand that the „modding differences“ were the reason you aimed to migrate, I as a user do not remotely see the benefits of a move when it was Ada that stepped up to do moderation. Especially if as Ada mentioned our community had reported these instances, a move would just signify a deterioration of our experience.

I have to reiterate that I have always appreciated Ada‘s decisions. The stepping up and sheltering many of us on the Reddit exodus and providing me with one of the few places nowadays I can go to and expect a civil, homely and communal experience.

I for one repeatedly have enjoyed your community management and moderation style.

I am happy and glad to know that someone as experienced and resourceful has always been committed to create, foster and defend a safe space like blahaj.

The fact that moderation specifically is cited as a reason to switch instances is worrisome to me and feels like it will not be a place for me I want to frequent and I am sad that you are being painted in a bad light here.

I thank you for your continuous good work and hope that this move at least eventually will lead to fewer bad moments for you, because you do not deserve to be treated badly with the care you are giving this community.

He is flirting with the alt-right. And some movements „dabble“ in nazi memorabilia to mention the most flagrant connections to it or his failure to even outright criticize Hitler.

I know that the word Nazi is really triggering but its also true in this case. He is not said to be a Nazi himself but flirting with them. Which is factual and not really discrediting per se.

If the only argument here is: Nazis can only be German and its a historical term that cannot ever be applied to other nations I think that belies how everyone consistently uses language in a not strict academic sense and even then there are academic papers linking him to Nazism and right ideology in general.

And your other insinuation of saying that „anyone who isnt working for a more just and equal society“ would be applicable to Trump, his campaign and the things he platforms falls flat if you look at what his recurring talking points are. Sure let’s use the word Nazi less bit of course in association with Trump it gets used for very clear, explicit parallels. But I don’t think you really care about that if you try to frame everything as tiny transgressions by people who are just not „fighting for a more just and equal society“. If Nazi is too strong a word, what would you propose? And is the use of it logically a valid reason to discredit an opinion? On an open source platform talking about people who have English as a second or third language?

Maybe, but they could’ve also posted the same request for citations on the first poster but did not.

I think that really does reflect how someone can just say whatever and when challenged we are biased to only assume the second opinion as doubtful.

Thank you for the lovely instance! I have been here since the reddit thing and feel like I wouldn't have stayed with Lemmy if it hadn't been for this lovely instance and the very amazing community you have moderated and fostered.

Thank you for all the hours of work and dedication, it's a huge pleasure with you two at the helm. To another year!

I think it really goes to show how reality bending it is when so much wealth is concentrated on singular people and that it’s just not healthy for us as a society.

Like even if he was a saint I don’t want any human to have direct control over so many things ESPECIALLY if he was not elected to do so in any capacity.

That he specifically has so many many „views“ on things I do not agree with just makes it that much more egregious

There is a spammer in the comments, they are not refering to OP :)

really liked the comic, thank you for sharing

Why would it have to be on their website to be true?

https://youtu.be/Ggpe_JrYy-A?si=WtiUBemUI2RVDM3d

This is just one snippet of them quite explicitly stating what they want. I think it would be disingenuous to argue otherwise

that patriarchy might ostensibly benefit men – even while poisoning them in a myriad of ways – but it is upheld by all genders, particularly within spaces like romantic partnership

With this quote I was reminded of many retellings of men in hetero relationship who still vividly remembered hurtful moments of being shamed when opening up and being vulnerable.

As the article states I would argue it’s wrong to assume that just one gender is at fault for the status quo, but that it is maintained by multiple actors.

And yes I’ve seen a lot of heteropessimism online and even partially irl but I think it’s breeding ground are „taking things for granted“ and just assuming what partners would like or want in relationships. Needs can be so diverse and deeply personal that I’d argue while there is possibility to feel safe in following a relationship script we have to dare to explore each other in our uniqueness and thereby also share ourselves authentically and that’s a forever journey.

Thank you for the nice read spaduf! (by the way is that a pun on the pokemon or am I nerding out?)

Goodness what an appalling thing to read. I grew up catholic (I haven’t been religious for more than a decade already) and still have to shake my head about the ban women face there to even become clergywomen.

The idea that there should be segregation based on sex is just so fundamentally weird to me especially in the example of boarding public transit.

I do hope this worrying trend is circumvented because it’s become abundantly clear in present times that the moment rights/laws are lost, a long battle is needed to regain them.

Like is this ultraconservative trend so appealing because people feel the past was SOMEHOW more appealing than the current times? I totally do not get it but thank you for sharing!