no-reply email addresses should be outlawed. Communicating with someone in a way that doesn't allow a response is obnoxious behaviour.
(No, I don't want to talk to your chat bot or 'ask the community'.)
This but also stop making it.
I'm not unconvinced that it can, but I haven't actually seen one yet (which surprises me).
As clearly marked, yes.
Makes total sense that they'd go after people who advocate for AI art.
Why am I being shown this? I don't follow you, it's not marked as sponsored, and I've never expressed any interest in AI art (other than to shit on it from time to time). Stop it, @bsky.app
It's that kind of thing that led to me deleting the app. (They're far from the only culprits of course.)
I'm not going to change your mind on the fundamentals of gender identity, nor am I here to, but I do think it's worth just noting for the record that I think your assertions are wrong and contrary to both compassionate ethics and expert opinion. Not going to debate it here.
Thank you for informing me on those cases, which I wasn't aware of. Indeed, it seems absurd that the definition of rape is 'gendered' like this when its conclusions demonstrably falsify it.
I was also disappointed that assertions regarding coalitions weren't rebutted, though I very much respect the podcast's gentle approach on this kind of thing.
(Still wonder if someone could have acknowledged that his position wasn't gospel without it devolving into a scrap though. Hindsight, etc.)
It's great to have Tories on from time to time so I can be reminded how profoundly I disagree with their political worldviews, not just (in most cases though perhaps not this) their personalities.
Because it's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled.
Sincere question though, not trying to catch you out: how much of it did you watch, and why?
Most of the show was people being lovely, I thought. Often stupid, often catty, but not horrible.
Sounds like you just don't like certain types of TV, which seems fine. I don't like some shows either. 🤷🏻♂️
So spoilers are fine as long as it's a documentary? Or...?
What you’re witnessing is a populist assault on the BBC.
This is not an institutional scandal in any meaningful sense of the word. It is an attack on public service broadcasting.
iandunt.substack.com/p/extra-edit...
This may be something I've missed, but which rapist (male, I assume) has the BBC misgendered?
He'd just keep telling everyone he's a traitor, then people would be surprised when they work out he's a traitor, then he'd be voted out and continue to deny that he was.
The worst part is the bit where you're being forced to watch.
(Don't think the Traitors is trying to pretend to be 'reality', btw.)
I'd be amazed if the other charities didn't also do pretty well out of it.
Nope! This is one thing I'm happy not to be democratic. Leave it to the experts - the casting is one of the main things that makes the show as good as it is.
🤌🏼
I'm still having regular physio sessions to treat cringe-related injuries after this scene.
Yeah, and post-partum depression was called hysteria. We've moved on. You?
I am very suspicious about this, and the supporting quotes and lack of critical voice in the article only make me more so.
So the question is: should I watch in the hope that the topic is handled better than it sounds like it'll be, should I hate-watch, or should I just avoid?
I skimmed back through assuming I'd missed that basic info.
Hurrah! Better reporting than the actual report.
If I were Jewish I'd be concerned about people like @chiefrabbi.bsky.social conflating resistance to the Israeli military with antisemitism.
Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews *for being Jews* - it's very dangerous to define all Jews as being represented by an extreme and violent minority.
Yup. If I'm being wordy for the sake of it when I know you don't have that vocabulary, I'm a dick. If I'm just using the correct word because it's correct and you haven't had the curiosity to learn it, that's on you.
Yup. It'll just be a flypast, but still. :)