I’d love one and have checked back each year after their first model, but they still don’t sell to Australia - and I’m not going to buy something I can’t get direct parts and services for, and would need to go through third parties for.

If their model is a successful business I honestly thought they would have expanded beyond shipping/supporting only Europe by now, its been a decade since their first model. Maybe they’re still not a very big player / modest success?

Nah gotta make the question more pointed: why is your administration, in your own words, giving access to top secret Intel to low-level losers?

It was sold to the Trumps, what do you think their plan is for it - donating it to a wildlife society?

It’s not like the news reporter has changed its fate with the terms they chose to discuss this purchase in.

I know exactly the community you mean but I haven’t interacted with it much beyond occasional visits and upvotes. It’s sad to hear that perspective of Lemmy, because it does get rose-tinted as a bit of a leftist utopia and this is the first time I’ve seen the ugliness. I really appreciate it being shared.

There never have been before 🤷‍♂️

Kids in my daughters class did a project about ‘an issue that is important to you’. They could pick anything.

Most of the kids talked about interesting and positive fields like environmental protection/space exploitation or some sport they love to participate in. Three of the boys chose to talk about ‘men’s rights’, and according to the teacher who I spoke to about it afterwards they were echoing Andrew Tate shit.

They were 10 years old at the time.

None of their parents are divorced either, so theres no ‘woe story’ from dad in the background to put any framing around this.

However, their parents are all conservative and all let their kids access Youtube with no oversight. So social media and lax/indifferent parenting are very much grooming the next generation into hateful misogynists like Tate.

I haven’t seen any radical female content creators personally, and there certainly doesn’t seem to be a large industry of them forming. If there is they’re very well hidden and poorly advertised.

But if that happens I’d absolutely be for talking people away from listening to them.

And all the news articles saying “only the US has bombs capable of penetrating deep enough to hit those facilities, and only the US has bombers designed to carry those (very heavy) bombs”.

Yep complete shock to all.

I’d say AI search summaries are somewhat useful for me 30% of the time. And I click through to the sources to confirm its summaries anyway, because they’re often oversimplified.

Often though, they’re goddamn useless.

I’m banging on about it? You highlighted it from my list and came up with the false narrative that I am somehow OK with womens-only clubs, something I’ve never claimed (that’s a strawman FYI).

You’re not interested to learn, nor to have an honest debate. Good luck with that attitude, you’ll need it.

These exaples are “not my world”, what does that even mean? You live on a different world? Examples have to be specifically from your zip code to be relevant discussion on a global web forum do they? Did you actually argue maybe all women are ok with being oppressed in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? Because many have famously vociferously opposed it, up to the point of being executed and being shot in the head. One of them works at the UN now, putting together work like whats in this very article. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24379018

The Garrick Club has incredibly powerful members including kings and prime ministers and hundred of members of Parliament. If you cannot see how excluding women from such a club is an issue of patriarchy then you are really not trying very hard to understand anything here.

And of course, everything is a strawman argument nowadays…

A strawman argument is stating a false weaker argument (or premise) of your opponent, to then argue against more easily than their real argument.

Your claim: there is no ‘formal’ system [of patriarchy]

Me: here’s several examples of formal systems of patriarchy.

You: I am being strawmanned!

Really, there is no formal system of patriarchy? No kings in your world?

The Catholic church still to this day refuses to ordain any women into the priesthood: men only.

Ask a girl in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia if there’s any formal patriarchy when they try to go to school, or drive, or go outside without head to toe covering, or simply go outside unaccompanied by a man.

In the west there are hundreds of industry bodies, clubs and business societies that wield enormous power and are exclusively men-only - or were men-only until the Civil Rights Act and were then taken to court to have their rules banning women overturned, or pressured for many decades to change their stance, such as the Garrick Club in the UK whom only finally opened their doors to female members last year.

I’m a man but I’m starting to hate men too with these replies.

What conversation though? The guys that lap this up dont even have conversations with women and feminists to begin with, which is why they can be manipulated to accept such a slanted view of their arguments - they have no point of reference. Akin to how people with no Muslim friends or colleagues in their lives are more easily misled to believe fearmongering and misinformation spread about them. I think you touched on the real root of the problem: influencers and social media funneling people into echo chambers.

I get that both sides sometimes talk past one another, but in my experience the young guys I talk to (via gaming mostly) have never spoken to a feminist or read a lick of literature and when bored online have just sought out a voice that tells them they are the good guy, or shits on a demographic that’s not them. Those voices usually start in the ‘feminist fails #38’ style YouTube videos (cut and edited to misrepresent of course)… then the Stephen Crowders… and the Andrew Tates. The pipeline to the manosphere / red pill scumbags, or worse incels or blackpill.

These guys existing and their views increasing is not necessarily a symptom that feminists are messaging incorrectly or that academics need to use different words to explain systemic issues - IMO they’re just another wonderful side effect of the “eyeballs = money, damn the content” algorithm preferences on social media, coupled with a very accepting attitude towards mysogyny and redpill content in Facebook, YouTube and other major social media content curation teams. All you have to do is look at who they censure and ban and who they don’t (and who they unban), and who they promote. Go use a fresh install of one of these platforms on a new device to see what their algorithm promotes in the main feed to a fresh new user. The angry rich white guy influencers get peppered in amongst the Mr Beast and music videos from the first couple of pages, so it’s no wonder more guys are exposed to this bullshit.

I tell the guys I’ve spoken with that those ‘entertainers’ are poison, chipping away at their empathy and compassion and pushing them to more isolation and fear - and that they need to be critical of what the influencers claim, and show curiosity for the community around them and engage with it rather than accept the simplistic charade. I’ve converted a few but its an uphill battle and that conversation takes months. The article points out that this is an issue that needs to be addressed - not that ‘boys need to be fixed’… but that the rise of this manosphere is damaging to all - men and women, and should be addressed systemically. Be that by parents paying closer attention to their kids content consuming habits, regulation for social media giants, laws against those who encourage sexual assault or violence, enshrining rights and protections more clearly into law, and so on - multi-pronged. The trouble is, a huge amount of guys commenting on this very article didn’t bother to read it and went straight to the usual talking points. I don’t think that’s you, but I think you can see the comments I mean.

Really? Like who? I only ever see or read feminists blaming issues on systemic issues of the patriarchy. Which is not the same as blaming all men at all.

Much the same as saying ‘the healthcare system in the US is fucked’ is not the same as saying ‘all healthcare workers are fucked’.

Bill Maher is Joe Rogan for people who think they’re too smart for Joe Rogan. He never has an important point to make about anything and is usually completely misinformed. This is a rich white Jewish guy that rarely sees any value in issues raised by any other demographic, yet always complains any time there is even a mild issue facing rich/white/Jewish guys.

Women make up more than 50% of the population, but make up 30% of the leads in Hollywood roles, up from the previous 15% - conspiracy of the woke! Or, maybe… The marketing teams figured out that women would rather watch a movie with a female lead more often. Or maybe… its a load of horseshit.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/women-hollywood-female-leads-1235830860/

Can’t believe I’m reading defence of the manosphere on Lemmy, but here we are.

As the article mentions, this is not even the first BBC documentary on Palestine that the BBC have pulled from their service after public pressure this year. They pulled one about kids in Palestine in February - after complaints from all the usual Zionist warhawks, including J.K. Rowling.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3374xm65mvo

The BBC have also pulled documentaries over less - merely “possibly upsetting conservative viewers with truth” is enough. Their leadership are spineless.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/mar/10/david-attenborough-bbc-wild-isles-episode-rightwing-backlash-fears

I’m guessing it’s witheld from publication because they are explicit US tech (eg Predator drones) that has been used to strike whole apartment buildings just to take out (possibly, if the intel is even correct) one scientist. Would look really bad when the US is still pretending they’re not really part of the conflict.

If China wants to keep escalating skirmishes and expanding ownership claims then it forces world powers to travel via the strait to demonstrate that it’s still a regular legal channel of international naval transit, owned by no-one. The channel is 130kms wide at its most narrow section ffs… the closest passing ships come to land is ~65kms. That’s a pretty large buffer.

China just sailed a fleet of their own warships around Australia three months back, crossing into Australian territorial waters a number of times and even conducting live firing tests in the waters between Australia and NZ. None of which was done with permission, or necessary to be done near Australia or NZ. There are enormous uninhabited sections of ocean that would have been less travel (and cost) for them to reach - its just done to flex muscle and could just as easily be framed as “intentional provocation” and “undermining peace and stability”. So its ‘rules for thee, not for me’.

Oh thanks yeah, typo. Fixed.

Yeah i’ll remember the good times fondly for sure. In its peak it was a great time and I don’t regret the time spent one bit.

The puck added a fun dimension, being able to fairly effortlessly run it up walls or onto the roof (compared to the ball), and the wonderful semi-glitchy physics of pinch hits on the flat surface of a puck. Nothing like pinch-hitting it against another player’s vehicle and watching the puck rocket unstoppably across into the goal. “Calculated”.