KombatWombat

This is too broad. Sure, you shouldn't be a bystander to atrocity, but a lot of my frustrations with other people's views tend to be that they were introduced to one, adopted it, and refused to change from it after being exposed to things that challenge it. Like this:

It's more that what's taught in American schools varies wildly between states, as it's generally left up to them to determine agendas individually. And schools and even individual teachers are going to choose for themselves how deeply things get covered.

For me, LGBT involvement was at least acknowledged when we covered the history of the Civil Rights movement. We were also shown a biographical film on the start of the AIDs epidemic when discussing viruses in biology. It made victims look very sympathetic, while the politicians that were uninterested in stopping the spread until it started affecting people outside of gay communities were rightfully depicted as villains. It probably came up in health classes too, but I don't remember anything distinctly.

Women have been wanting comparable rights to men since before written history, yet most people would say the women's suffrage movement started in the mid 1800s. The original user wasn't saying trans people didn't exist until recently, they were likely saying there wasn't previously any serious effort at accepting them in (American? Western?) society, or at least no where near the magnitude as today. Basic public tolerance may not be good, but it is much better than even just a decade or two before.

Paris is Burning isn't a film I had heard about before, probably because it's older than me and I haven't been paying attention to queer spaces long. And if that user is 45 now, they would be about 10 when it released. Pretty reasonable to not have it on their radar considering it is R rated. Still, they shouldn't assume trans communities didn't exist just because they were not aware of any back then. That's just a mistake.

I took a look and I see their point. Rule 3 sounds like there's effectively a black list of known unreliable sources. And even then, it sounds like there would be exceptions based on the mods' discretion. I wouldn't expect a blanket ban on blogs from reading that.

Personally, I think requiring a reputable source for an article is a good policy for the community, at least when one is available, as in this case. And it does sound like it is being enforced objectively. We are in an age where information is weaponized and fake news and engagement is manufactured maliciously. It makes sense to be skeptical of sources with no reputation on the line.

But I do think the requirement should be clarified in the rules better to match what it means de facto. If nothing else, it would simplify things when someone complains again in the future. And including a list of repeat offender sites could be helpful so long as it's clear that it is not exhaustive. Just mentioning that MBFC is used to judge sources could reduce the amount of unreliable posts in the first place.

For reference, these are the rules I see:

Rules:

1. Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.

2. No racism or bigotry.

3. Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article title.

5. No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.

Instance-wide rules always apply.

I haven't played it and hate nearly everything I have seen about the age system, but they did make the map generation more varied in the latest patch. They've called the map inadequacies a priority to work on, so it will probably get better if you return to it down the line.

The channel is Jubilee. The format is that 1 fairly prominent political activist debates 20 people with an opposing position for a few claims the 1 has given beforehand. The 20 swap out who gets to debate at any particular time by voting them out.

I'll admit it is ragebaity sometimes, but I also find it educational and entertaining. There's typically about two among the 20 that have gone off the deep end, but everyone else is respectful and appreciative of the opportunity to engage the other side. Also, it does have good fact-checking so the crazies are at least recognized properly.

This is the video the image came from.

I also picked this up recently and am enjoying it a lot. Can't speak for the multiplayer, but the singleplayer is very good. There are a lot of meaningful choices and variety that keep things fresh throughout and between runs.

The UN hasn't explicitly called it genocide, but if you assume China's motivation is to reduce their population, it seems hard to argue its actions wouldn't qualify. Widespread arbitrary imprisonment and certainly forced sterilization would meet at least condition 4 of their requirement. The Genocide Convention's definition is below, emphasis mine:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

You could argue they don't actually intend to reduce the Uyghur population, but it's hard to accept that a surge in the Xinjiang region's sterilization rate and the birth rate being cut in half over the course of three years are just anti-terrorism measures.

People are linking good guides to inventing the important stuff, but you should also know that you can download wikipedia. The text-only English snapshot as of 2025-03-01 was 25 GB, so fairly reasonable to include on a flash drive, laptop, or phone. Just make sure you charge your device before time travelling.

My friends and I really like Civ 5, but we didn't get into 6 much and had some reservations about the changes in 7. I think we'll get it at some point, but it will probably be during a sale after some more polish (and maybe some mods to adjust some of the controversial changes).

But I've had the itch from the hype and I've been wanting to try some other turn-based 4X games. Old World is 75% off on Steam at the moment so I pulled the trigger yesterday. I've seen gameplay but I'm eager to try it myself. The narrative choices seem like they add a lot of meaningful decision-making that I want to explore. I also played some Age of Wonders 4 and have enjoyed that too, but there's a lot to learn with all the combat mechanics. It means there's a lot of replayability though.

When you give blood, often the "wrong" answer will just have them ask a followup after you submit the questionnaire. Like there is one asking if you had recently visited any of a list of countries of concern. I selected that I had because of a trip to Mexico, but I was still able to give blood that day because when they later asked which region, the one I had visited was considered safe.

I expect if you had been bitten by a mosquito in a place where that isn't a significant concern and developed no symptoms other than the itch, you would probably be approved to donate. Receiving plasma is less dangerous than receiving blood so I would be surprised if the safety evaluation is more strict.

Guess growing up was kinda tough after all