Sal Grover is an example of the indoctrination process the TERF movement has perfected.

Giggle, when it was first released, allowed trans women, but it also used an automated facial recognition system to decide who was a woman and who wasn’t. There was quite a bit of pushback about that, especially with the fact that the system was far from perfect, and excluded many women, particularly trans women. They put in a process to manually approve signups from people who were rejected by the facial recognition system, but that was slow and more invasive of people’s privacy.

Sal Grover at this point, doubled down on the facial recognition aspect, and the pushback against it also increased.

And then the TERFs came in. They told Grover that she was doing the right thing with her facial recognition system, and the fact it was screwing over trans women didn’t matter. And the next thing you know, Grover just bans trans women from the app, and starts actively spouting TERF transphobic talking points, and over the next few years becomes an important figure in TERF circles in Australia…

Do you know something I don’t?

About a third of all trans women are as a matter of fact

If there isn’t one, you’re welcome to create one!

Decentralisation purist here.

And if so, would that entail that the beneficial effects to the group can overwrite the wellbeing of a single individual?

Nope. This is contradictory with your earlier definition. If morality can’t exist without humanity, then that means morality is subjective. If it were objective, it would apply across the board.

But if morality is also “Doing what is best for the group, even at the expense of the individual” then you’ve just defined it as objective, not subjective.

The reality is, morality is subjective. But it’s not chosen. It’s part instinct that derives from us being social animals, but it’s also part custom, tradition and culture. There is no objective morality, sure, but that doesn’t just mean that folk get to remove other peoples agency and claim the moral high ground.

How can you find certainty in what’s morally acceptable and what is not?

You can’t. You just have to listen to your own sense of right and wrong. If it’s too much at odds with the rest of society, you’ll know about it…

Purging doesn’t federate.

I think it was a reframing of “death by a thousand papercuts”

Last time I looked at vernisage, they had signups closed and I couldn’t find out much about it. I had forgotten it existed until I saw your post, and honestly, it sounds way more relevant to me that pixelfed. It even does HDR out of the box!

From their perspective, we’re killing animals that don’t need to be killed, to fill a preference we have for flavour. And they’re not even wrong.

They’re allowed to be angry. If it were easier to be vegan or vegetarian, I probably would be, and the only way that’s going to happen is if people keep making noise and pushing for change. Which is what they’re doing.

Powderfinger, two times.

They’re from my home city and I got to see their farewell concert from their home hometown. Outdoor stadium, and it was raining, but it was an absolutely amazing experience.

During COVID, they also did a one night only online concert, all of the members recording from different locations. It was amazing to see them back together, and it was a great way to breakup the lockdown doldrums.

Except in the case of teleportation, one of them is stopped after the other has started. For ease of making my point clearer, lets say it takes a few seconds after teleportation to destroy the original.

For those few seconds, there would be two divergent consciousnesses. The original consciousness would not experience the consciousness stream of the copy. It would be left experiencing the inside of the teleporter, and then it would be extinguished. The copy would have access to the memories of the original consciousness, and would infact experience itself as a continuation of that consciousness stream, as would anyone and everyone that interacted with the copy.

But the original consciousness, the one that was copied, briefly existed simultaneously with its copy, yet distinct from it, before being extinguished.

Even if you believe that every moment of life is some version of that, where our experience of continued consciousness is not real, where we are “reconstituted” continuously as new versions, with only shared access to memory letting us perceive it as continuous, the teleporter still creates a second stream simultaneously with the first, before ending the first. You have a sense of self that is consistent and continuous. Even if you are recreated constantly, that is not how its experienced. You still fear death, injury, sickness etc, because you perceive those things as impacting you and your future experiences. You place value on your perceived continuation. And the teleporter breaks that, because there is no longer a perceived continuation for the original, only for the copy. And unless the act of copying spreads perceived consciousness across both streams simultaneously, one stream is going to experience its end.

I banned the account

I have bradycardia too. Mine is exercise induced. I used to be a sub elite runner, and my heart grew larger/stronger from running a lot. As a result of that, it pumps more blood per beat, and thus, beats slower for the same effect.

To me, bradycardia doesn’t feel like anything, because it’s not noticeably different from when I didn’t have it.

Bradycardia is not always that

Mine is fitness induced bradycardia, and to me, I don’t even notice it most of the time. It doesn’t feel like anything. The exception is sometimes, I get dizzy when standing up, which has historically been attributed to fitness induced bradycardia, but now they believe it’s specific to runners, and related to changes in the inner ear from running a lot

Never owned a car…

I did 16,000km on my gravel bike though before someone stole it

From the perspective of a 3rd party, it’s a technicality. From the perspective of the original continued consciousness, it’s not.

The problem with that line of thought is that even if it is true, it doesn’t apply here, because when you create a perfect copy of yourself, you don’t magically get a shared continuity where you experience the continuity of both the original and the copy. There would now be two independent chains of experience, and even if every chain of experience is endless destruction with continuity just being a trick of memory, there would still be two divergent continuities now, and one of those would end.

The difference is that you’d be dead. There would be a copy of you running around that thinks it is you, but you, your chain of continuity would not be that copy. To literally everyone else, including the copy, you may as well be the original, but the journey from your personal experience would be over. You would be dead and the world would continue on with a copy of your in your place, which you wouldn’t experience.