Hm, yeah I guess no one has been speculating about this part of the de/federate Threads reality. Everyone's worried about Meta and EEE, but what we should have really been discussing is the history of Meta moderation and community guidelines which have often cited "free speech" when people use white supremacist dog whistling but cite "calls to violence" when people of color actively complain about white supremacy.

There's a reason why we have seen news articles about large LEO Facebook groups trading and making joke comments on racist memes...

We were worried about the technology, but we should have been worried about cultural infiltration.

The upbeat background music is killing me in this video, but I also can't help but think that MGT is saying these things with a positive voice inflection. Like, this isn't the wind-up to a "AND THIS IS BAD" shoe being dropped at the end of her cadence. I'm fully surprised at how benevolent her tone of voice is here in describing anything about Biden given her other howler-monkey tendencies.

Oh good. Millennials are due for another world calamity. We've had one plague. Why not a second plague?

Okay so let me offer some context here to shed light on a few things you said. Please know that the Venn diagram between me and DeSantis is razor thin, and the only thing (I think) we have in common is that we are carbon-based life forms. I also see some common sense items in what was described in the article, but I have my larger misgivings, which I'll explain much further below.

Why alimony is important and necessary
Here's why alimony is important for the rest of an ex-spouse's life. I want to be clear that I believe a spouse of any gender should have access to alimony, but the most traditional situation is a woman who forfeited having a career outside of the home to be a mother and homemaker, while a man furthered his career for - let's just say - a long enough time that once the divorce occurs, it's too late for the woman to reasonably start a career and expect to rise to the same level the man is at in his career at time of divorce. Let's use an arbitrary number like 20 years for my example. Let's assume these two people met and married no later than 25 years old for the sake of my example, as well. Alimony is not relevant for couples married for very short periods (less than 5 years), nor is it relevant if both spouses worked full-time jobs.

So in my example here, both people are about 40-45 years old. Retirement age is going to vary by industry, but roughly let's say 65 years old. By this point, the man has paid into either a 401k, pension, a Roth IRA, or some other retirement financial tool for 20+ years as well as a federal retirement program, usually Social Security. One of the stipulations of paying into these financial tools is that you have to have a job in which you're submitting W-2/I-9 documentation. A stipulation of receiving the money you paid into Social Security in specific, is that you have to make enough dollar-amount SS contributions that amount to a little more than 10 years of working a W-2/I-9 kind of job/career. And to boot, the amount of SS you get paid after retiring is based on your highest earning 35 years of your lifetime of work.

So when a woman has skipped college, not worked outside the home, hasn't gained job skills, etc. etc. for 20 years, she is now coming back to the job market with zero tools and equipment to get into a career (though obviously could enter the workforce through a paycheck-to-paycheck poverty wages kind of job), has no Social Security credits for a retirement that is just about as far away for her as it is for her ex-spouse, and has no savings or other financial resources because she was a homemaker and didn't earn money as her compensation for her labor. She is also now going into new situations at a time in life in which we have all lost neuroplasticity and may find it difficult to learn new things or go back to college. And we should also be realistic about the subtle/legal ways in which older people are discriminated against in the hiring process.

This is why alimony exists. It helps to make up for the opportunity-cost in an adult's older career years and for lack of retirement security. When the members of the First Wives Association and other ex-spouses seek lifetime alimony, it's because they either will never have access to their own Social Security benefits, or will have access to extremely scant benefits whenever they do retire.

This article was like... if a YouTuber had a journalism job but no training. Pretty hard to read and editorialized heavily.

Don't believe anything you read about the trump machine imploding.

Vote. Don't be complacent.

Here are my concerns about this bill, regardless of some common sense aspects of it
After Roe v Wade was overturned, there were a series of news articles this past year about what the next play for conservatives would be to further erode women's right, now that a woman's autonomy over her own reproductive choices was no longer enshrined. A lot of writers started pointing to quieter movements in states like Texas and Florida to abolish "no fault" divorces.

Remember a few months ago when Steven Crowder was pissing and moaning about how his wife initiated their divorce and the thing that seemed to really miff him the most was how "apparently in the state of Texas, she can do that"? The issue as far as he is articulating it isn't necessarily the stress of a divorce but that he couldn't exert control over the situation or over her - she had the legal right to dissolve their marriage all of her own volition. That is unacceptable to men who will always want control over women. The fact that conservatives want to come after this legal autonomy after already "winning" the war on women's bodily autonomy shouldn't be glossed over.

No-fault divorce is an alternative to fault divorces. For states that permit no-fault divorce, people can still cite a fault. A no-fault divorce means that either party can initiate divorce proceedings without having to cite fault of the other spouse, usually physical abuse, infidelity, or inability to bear children.

However throughout the '50s, '60s, and '70s, if you were a woman being abused or raped by your spouse, it was exceptionally difficult to prove that abuse or to gain sympathy over that abuse in order to follow through with a fault divorce. And if your husband isn't cheating on you and you have children, you can't cite the other typical reasons for divorce. So a lot of women were trapped in domestic violence for hundreds of years in America because of these divorce laws.

Only in the late '60s, when California enacted a no-fault divorce law in 1969, did women's rights around this matter advance. This is why divorce "skyrocketed" in the 1970s. I want to be clear that I believe that no-fault divorce should power all genders of spouses, but relating to the Women's Empowerment movement of the 1970s, this was absolutely key to women starting to rebuild their lives away from being daddy's little girl who was transferred like property to becoming Mrs. John Smith. This is one of a few key moments in American history that allowed women the opportunities to eventually become CEOs, Supreme Court Justices, congresspeople, and homemakers.

Though people tend to focus heavily on divorce rates as a metric of failure of a relationship (or failure of "family values"), the reality is that women in today's era are technically better positioned to willingly enter into marriage knowing there are legal mechanisms in place should that marriage turn sour. If women understood that by entering into a marriage, there would be an almost impossible chance to escape it if something arose, then I think we will see many more educated women never accepting marriage at all for themselves. Educated women were already less likely to marry as young as uneducated women. The most vulnerable population affected are uneducated women who marry young to conservative spouses and are manipulated into (or socialized into valuing) being homemakers.

Hence even though there are common sense elements in this legislation coming out of Florida, there are very real harms that will come out of this 20 years from now that impact conservative women getting married in 2024. I also worry about the larger "give them an inch, and they invade Poland" posture of the Republican party as this alimony law could eventually lead to an erosion of no-fault divorce laws, as well.

Also, I don't think moderation can even stop brigading or the downvotes to hell avalanche. It could only stop thread and comment creation on just your one community/magazine on your instance.

Nothing could stop a bad faith actor from finding my comments on a different instance and harassing or brigading me there if that instance federated with Threads, even if my instance defederate from Threads.

This Fediverse stuff is... complex.

This is a reach.

This is the second time I've seen something on kbin trying to dress the reddit migration to the Fediverse up as some hugely patriotic thing.

We don't need that, we don't benefit from it. This is how you create demagogues. Don't infuse nationalism into the Fediverse. That is super problematic and I think you're going to be in for a rude awakening when you see how much more European the Fediverse is than reddit was.

I am hoping that the new users are coming here with the intent to learn how this community works, before we try to remake the community we just left.

I counter this part of your post by throwing in there that for me and my time on reddit, the worst parts of the broader experience were the fact that communities of neo-nazis (r/conservative, r/conspiracy), Donald Trump cultists (r/the Donald), incels (numerous subreddits including r/incels and r/theredpill), and pedophiles (r/just18 among other porn based subreddits that were quarantined and banned several years ago) were allowed their own communities on the platform for as long as they were. This gave these horrible ideas time to draw attention and build a userbase that then degraded the quality of reddit across multiple other communities.

If kbin or lemmyworld immediately start banning or defederating these instances or communities/magazines, then to me that is how this larger community works and it is inherently not former redditors migrating here to shape the Fediverse in the image of reddit.

Brought to you by The People Making It Objectively Worse(tm) comes Some Professions Are Worth Dying In. Sign up for your dystopian nightmare in a world on fire, today!

This same article was posted on another magazine, so I'm reposting my comments from that thread here in response to comments left by @Retix @cassetti and @amberprince

Please know that the Venn diagram between me and DeSantis is razor thin, and the only thing (I think) we have in common is that we are carbon-based life forms. I also see some common sense items in what was described in the article, but I have my larger misgivings, which I'll explain much further below.

Why alimony is important and necessary

Here's why alimony is important for the rest of an ex-spouse's life. I want to be clear that I believe a spouse of any gender should have access to alimony, but the most traditional situation is a woman who forfeited having a career outside of the home to be a mother and homemaker, while a man furthered his career for - let's just say - a long enough time that once the divorce occurs, it's too late for the woman to reasonably start a career and expect to rise to the same level the man is at in his career at time of divorce. Let's use an arbitrary number like 20 years for my example. Let's assume these two people met and married no later than 25 years old for the sake of my example, as well. Alimony is not relevant for couples married for very short periods (less than 5 years), nor is it relevant if both spouses worked full-time jobs.

So in my example here, both people are about 40-45 years old. Retirement age is going to vary by industry, but roughly let's say 65 years old. By this point, the man has paid into either a 401k, pension, a Roth IRA, or some other retirement financial tool for 20+ years as well as a federal retirement program, usually Social Security. One of the stipulations of paying into these financial tools is that you have to have a job in which you're submitting W-2/I-9 documentation. A stipulation of receiving the money you paid into Social Security in specific, is that you have to make enough dollar-amount SS contributions that amount to a little more than 10 years of working a W-2/I-9 kind of job/career. And to boot, the amount of SS you get paid after retiring is based on your highest earning 35 years of your lifetime of work.

So when a woman has skipped college, not worked outside the home, hasn't gained job skills, etc. etc. for 20 years, she is now coming back to the job market with zero tools and equipment to get into a career (though obviously could enter the workforce through a paycheck-to-paycheck poverty wages kind of job), has no Social Security credits for a retirement that is just about as far away for her as it is for her ex-spouse, and has no savings or other financial resources because she was a homemaker and didn't earn money as her compensation for her labor. She is also now going into new situations at a time in life in which we have all lost neuroplasticity and may find it difficult to learn new things or go back to college. And we should also be realistic about the subtle/legal ways in which older people are discriminated against in the hiring process.

This is why alimony exists. It helps to make up for the opportunity-cost in an adult's older career years and for lack of retirement security. When the members of the First Wives Association and other ex-spouses seek lifetime alimony, it's because they either will never have access to their own Social Security benefits, or will have access to extremely scant benefits whenever they do retire.

Absolute lack of self awareness. Like, what does it mean if the criticism is coming from both the left and now the right about how blind the loyalty is to this orange fascist? They're desperate to link DeSantis and Hillary, but don't you think DeSantis also stands to benefit from conservatives' blind loyalty. When even he is trying to be the wake up call, and they reject it... Good God.

In the article, one source stated that their work has become more intense. This isn't something I anticipated, but it seems the logical conclusion: if you utilize AI for all the easiest parts of your job, then all that remains are the hard parts, which now dominate your workday because you knocked out all the easy things quickly.

Gets me thinking about how I need some of the easy things to be a release valve for my workflow. I need the sense of accomplishment from those easier/smaller tasks to keep up my morale and energy for the larger projects.

If I'm not mistaken, Trump was given very clear orders from the bench not to run his mouth online to disparage any members of the jury, interact with them, or intimidate them. This situation is that Brooklyn 99 meme of Holt saying, "Why did you start intimidating the jury? I specifically requested that you don't."

Lock him up.

I am aware that this has been covered, but I have to maintain the belief that much like the US Postal Service, the federal government will continue to foot the bill regardless.

This is a victory against which essentially appears to be Redlining 2.0.

Very surprising coming out of Texas.

Having acknowledged the positive in this, the cynic in me can't help but read in between the lines of how this maybe reveals what revenue streams in Texas wield power versus what doesn't.

Ban water breaks for construction workers = lucrative contracts for my industry cronies.

Ban Section 8 discrimination by HOAs = not an industry that can make me money as a politician, so screw them.

It's surprising the new flexibility these mental gymnasts are demonstrating.

8 years ago it was, "But he goes to church. He says he loves the bible, so yeah. He closed his eyes when we prayed for him and laid hands on him and he didn't burst into flame. You know, it's all a wash after you've asked for forgiveness."

Now it's "We are smart enough to elect a president, not a pastor."

Ya sure about that one, biscuit?

They're not even hiding the fact they think he's a piece of shit. He's just a piece of shit who falls in line with their view of social dominance and control.

I liked the episode!

But I was going into it with expectations that it was going to be kind of mid like the first season of Disenchanted. I was very pleasantly surprised that there was like a legitimate plot line, even though it was kind of silly. It seem like the same level of incredulous shenanigans that Futurama has always gotten itself into.

America. Where others' enjoyment of looking at your pregnant body is more important than what you can do with your own body.

This reminds me of when I started a rewatch of King of the Hill when I was in graduate school for media analysis. It struck me that nearly every conflict in the first few seasons is based on insider/outsider identities. Sometimes Hank and other main characters learn and grow from it, but there are several times in which the Other is shouted down for just not getting it.

• Something with either Bobby or Luann gets the attention of the hippy dippy school counselor (characterized by really west coast or PNW sensibilities) who starts poking around in the home as a stand in for CPS trying to impose more modern approaches to child rearing: the outsider who gets shouted down at the end

• The new neighbor is Laotian and bickers with Hank until they find common ground: the outsider embraced

• Hank throws his back out and workers comp will only pay for yoga classes, to which Hank turns up his nose for being too different. Eventually his pain drives him to giving it a chance and he not only gets better but vehemently defends it afterward: the outsider embraced

• A Native American recurring character named John Redcorn is always received by Dale as just having such a mysterious and ancient mystical presence by virtue of being Native even though Dale and John Redcorn had the same kind of upbringing together: the outsider always held at arm's length

• ETA: I almost forgot my favorite story line! Hank Hill learns about growers co-ops promoting a natural food movement, which he associates with hippy dippy communism until he starts buying produce there and it's so fresh and flavorful, Peggy Hill delivers my favorite punchline of all time. Hank becomes a convert and sees this as a return to the land for country folk and starts volunteering at the co-op: the outsider embraced

There are so many ways that this theme of the big city (usually in the form of white characters) or the racial minority (usually representing the larger world) encroaching on their little suburb of Arlen, Texas, is the source of conflict. I don't think Mike Judge pulled that out of thin air.