Migrating here (or maybe keeping both) from @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.ml

Will put an eternal curse on your enemies for a Cinemageddon invite.

  • 0 Posts
  • 133 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle





  • I mean, if you’re making fun of closeted repressed gay people who are republicans, you’re still making fun of closeted repressed gay people. And the punchline wasn’t “haha republican,” it was “haha gay.”

    I understand the rationalization that it’s ok to make fun of them for being gay because they’re assholes, but it’s still making fun of them for being gay.


  • A) I didn’t, it was a joke about how it’s cool to be homophobic and body shame depending on the circumstances. A disdainful one as, like I probably have adequately demonstrated, I disagree with that all too common premise. You are only perpetuating the homophobic part though, to be fair.

    B) “so yeah again I say ‘haha gays’ is fine because they’re repressed enough to be dicks.”


  • afraid to come out and lose everyone they know or even be assaulted,

    I envy the world you live in where everything is so easy as to “just not bro.”

    “Just leave the cult bro fuck your family and everything you’ve ever known who cares if the members assault or kill you just be yourself™”

    Hop on grindr, find a few, and tell them to quit being cowards. Maybe you’ll help.


  • Or they fear being ostracized from their family and friends for being themselves, but fuck them since they’re afraid to come out and lose everyone they know or even be assaulted, right?

    Rationalize it however you need to (lord knows those closeted republican gays do hahaha, yeah?) but tbh “haha gays” is still not the best punchline ever. Honestly at best it’s hack. Got any good “haha trump look liek cheto” material on deck?


  • Critical or not “gay” isn’t necessarily the best punchline, it still insinuates there’s something to mock about gayness, though I suppose your caveat is “only if it’s closeted and repressed.” They’re still just as oppressed if not more than say someone who is openly gay and accepted by their family, and mocking them likely isn’t going to convince them to come out, so idk if “it’s ok because they’re hypocrites” is actually the case. It seems to me these people are just as vulnerable as the rest of the gay population, repression and all, and might need more help because of all that.

    But y’know don’t let that spoil your good time, they probably have small wieners and are fat and gay and bald ha ha ha.






  • Yes, but this is where threat modeling comes into play.

    Right,:

    If you need nation-state level secrecy, rule #1 is don’t associate with idiots who can’t be bothered with at least the most basic opsec. I shouldn’t talk to this motherfucker at all were that my case, or at least not digitally. Thankfully at worst we talk about me middlemanning him some weed, and even local PD dgaf.

    Though btw speaking of:

    Can the size or metadata

    Plenty of people have been drone striked (struck?) simply because the metadata said they were talking to the wrong guy. Frankly if you need that high of a level of secrecy, you’d be better served using tails/tor, or hell even snail mail with false return addr and a book cipher. But for:

    all ISPs, WiFi networks, CDNs, VPNs, script skiddies with Wireshark, and network admins in the path

    Then frankly either signal or jabber+encryption (or for that matter, simplex, briar, yadda yadda) should be fine.

    Signal also benefits from the network effect, because someone trying to get away from an abusive SO has plausible deniability if they download Signal on their phone (“all my friends are on Signal” or “the doctor said it’s more secure than email”)

    But then again, it’s more likely to be known as an encrypted chat which may be a problem for them, while the abusive SO might just think XMPP is some outdated IM they know what signal is, and “my friends” can use jabber just the same as signal.

    Alas, this is an issue with all messaging apps, if people delete the app without closing their account

    Except not. XMPP not being tied to a phone number, if my buddy Steve deletes Conversations, while I may not be able to message him on jabber I can fall back on text. However (and again maybe now this is fixed), on signal if he deletes the app, I can no longer signal message him, nor can I SMS him because they get lost in limbo as signal messages, I’d have to email or use XMPP to get him to redownload signal, delete it properly, and THEN I can SMS him again. (Maybe no longer now that “no sms,” but also “no sms now but still give us your phone number” don’t sit right with me.)


  • Tbf, can’t the other party mess it up with signal too? I have a friend with a Samsung running stock samsung android, bloatware and all; how can I trust there’s no google or samsung keylogger, which I’m pretty sure at least one of those companies installs? With copilot existing now, how can I be sure that, when that makes it’s way to stock android, it won’t capture the signal convo? The man uses windows, how can I be sure he won’t surrender our chats to current copilot?

    If you need nation-state level secrecy, rule #1 is don’t associate with idiots who can’t be bothered with at least the most basic opsec. I shouldn’t talk to this motherfucker at all were that my case, or at least not digitally. Thankfully at worst we talk about me middlemanning him some weed, and even local PD dgaf.

    My main issue for signal is (mostly iPhone users) download it “just for protests” (ffs) and then delete it, but don’t relinquish their acct, so when I text them using signal it dies in limbo as they either deleted the app or never check it and don’t allow notifs. If they had relinquished their acct at least it would fall back on SMS and I could still contact them but the way it was I was literally cut off from texting at least three friends until I relinquished my acct. Now maybe somehow with the removal of SMS maybe that is fixed, but also removing SMS took my biggest selling point to “normals,” so, fuck me.




  • That’s a big if too lol. But even then AUS’ buyback only got about 700,000 firearms handed to the government, at the cost of over $700 million to taxpayers. At 600,000,000 guns, that’d be $6.E11 if ours cost the same as theirs did in '96. Something tells me we don’t have scientific notation money just laying about.

    And historically in the US buyback programs only do get those shitty revolvers and Jimenez arms, at best someone prints a bunch of chairmanwons or DIAS and exploits the system.

    Then we’d need to define what the sensible laws are, and somehow make it so they’re not abused, which is easier said than done.

    And tbh they have good reason to be afraid of their government. Less so neighbors, but them too sometimes, shit gets violent over here, and sometimes you do need to protect yourself.


  • I mean, tbh, we have over 600,000,000 guns and trillions of rounds of ammo in ~45% of the pop’s hands, no registry to know who/where those are, and at those numbers we’re a larger “force” (no organization) with more guns and ammo than most of the world’s militaries combined (and larger/more than ours “alone,” well, combined with our police actually). Sure they have the fancy toys, but…

    You’d have to go door by door and search literally every house AND somehow make sure the people to be searched don’t stash shit before you get there with someone who has been searched, and you’d have to get them all (not miss one hidden in floorboards), AND you’d have to restrict home depot purchases going forward, AND somehow not get smoked by a “cold dead fingers” ass motherfucker, all so we can make sure our totally not fascist government is the only one possessing arms.

    Good fucking luck. Even if someone could which is a big if, idk if they should considering that last bit.