some could view it as unfunny(personally i dislike the ‘grandmas facebook had a leftist baby with a political propaganda poster’-style posts but i cant downvote or see downvotes anyways, that aspect of reddit has always been anger inducing for me so im glad i don’t have access to it.) i dont see this meme as being bad though; air left my nose, dopamine pathways were activated.

I feel there has been a misunderstanding here.

Im not saying anything against furries, I am instead stating that our ideas of normality are entirely socially constructed, meaning this bill could be applied to basically any behavior depending on your interpretation of what is “typical to homo sapiens” I could, for example, state that it is normal for someone to be a furry, as humans have a long history of portraying themselves in similar ways. I could also say that a piercing is an “atypical” accessory not permitted by the rules. There is no such thing as normal. To call something weird is just to simply state that you haven’t been exposed to it enough for it to qualify as weird for you.

guy who knows nothing about the spanish language, musicals, mexico, or being trans writes spanish musical centering around a trans person from mexico.

Wow there sure is a lot of behavior and accessories not “typcal to homo sapiens” makes me wonder what the hell they even mean here by “typical”, it’s like calling someone “objectively not normal” while ignoring that your entire view on normality is based on what you have been exposed to. I am not a furry or a therian or anything, but the flaws in this law absolutely allow it to be applied to just about any “behavior or accessory”

The law defines “non-human” behavior “any type of behavior… [not typically] displayed by a member of the homo sapiens species,”

NATHON!! STOP ACTING LIKE A HOMO ERECTUS YOU NEANDERTHAL!

also im pretty sure “human” means ‘under the homo genus’ not ‘homo sapien’ but its not like it matters to them

Ah. did not realize that, thank you

I feel many of the examples you gave for “Form” dont even really fit. “Chairs” are an abstraction we created, so is the sensation of temperature (albeit this sensation is less absorbed, it is more automatic, fundamental, immutable compared to the concept of a chair) I see life as reproducing emergence. I love looking at artifical life and emergence, its really interesting seeing all the different digital mediums we have created that have seemed to allow for compex evolving ‘life’ to emerge.

Seeing these “artificial life” simulations does make me see all that which only kind of fits into the definition of life. I have seen evolving organisms come out only because rules were created to give them a genome, death, and reproduction, but I have also see simulations made out of incredibly simple rules that produce complex evolving reproducing patterns.

It feels to me that “life” is just a line in the sand we have drawn, and this line exists only because stuff that falls into our “life” category are the best at reproduction and competition.

It is also my view that questions like these can be vague, leaving different people to understand the question differently, leading to them giving different responses. I personally understood this as “is the concept of life an abstraction”

i have seen others hide prompts via small text and unicode characters that make invisible text. I imagine you could also use unicode characters that look exactly like normal characters, these characters then maybe messing with tokenization or something.

searxng

smh fake internet leftists

randomly choosing a random outgroup to collectively hate must be ironically funny sometimes(see: jokes about the fr*nch) Genuinely there is no other reason. sometimes people will create justifications/other explanations for it but really its just absurdist humor with a pinch of tribalism. edit: i should add though, usually this type of humor is meant to be ironic by most of its participants. the more i think about it, the more it seems this is more rude than funny.

Decentralize the shit out of this, please. Make sure their tech-heads know that the document itself is unkillable. It’ll always pop up somewhere else.

Ive mentioned in another comment that daily dumps of the wiki could be taken, making it relatively easy for anyone to just download the wiki’s content and set it up on their own, but past that I would not know what to do. Mediawiki was not designed to be ran decentralized. It could maybe be ran federated, but I do not have the programming experience required to do that, and as far as I’ve seen it has not been done before.

> How do you get enough “reporters” to write the pages? Advertising on Lemmy and across the internet would be great, and additionally I might be able to contact the owners of the r/50501 subreddit to put something up.

> What does your vision of a topic look like? I dont feel I understand this question well, but my understanding of it is that it is asking for my vision of what coverage of certain topics will look like (If I’m wrong, feel free to elaborate) I think this from another comment is a pretty good explanation:

“One category could act encyclopedia/news-like, attempting to simply restate facts from an unbiased perspective(You might have one article that explains everything the current admin has done in relation to our nuclear arsenal, for example), whilst another category could act more like Wikipedia:Essays and essays/guides enjoyed/used by the community might be promoted to a third category of high quality guides and essays.”

> How do you see this having an impact on these incidents?

In the past few weeks, a lot of whats happened has been expected. I expected the administration to go after free press, I expected the administration to go after trans people, I expected the administration to lay off thousands of workers and replace them with loyalists. These were all things I expected. It was the ways they happened, the speed by which they happened, and the unexpected(e.g; musk nazi salute) that really damaged my mental health and kept me paralyzed. I was overwhelmed from all the news coming from so many different angles, I couldn’t actually think about what to do about it, I couldn’t resist, and I could not even do preemptive work to protect myself from the future.

It is my belief that if past actions are calmly laid out together combined with planned future actions and analysis of rhetoric, resistors and potential victims(i.e everyone) of fascism can not only mentally prepare for the next steps of fascism, but can come up with new ideas for action against fascism, and can execute these ideas with themselves and their communities. This potentially combined with guides for what can be done to resist or be safe against fascism would absolutely be helpful imo.

> It would not be hard to set up, but I think spreading the word, then maintaining it (if it becomes a target) could be a huge amount of overhead. I like the concept, I’m just wondering if there is a lower threshold way to make this happen. (Different platform, lowering the scope, etc.)

Oh. absolutely. The more I look at this, the bigger of a project it seems. If the wiki were to large (or be a target as a result of being large) then by then I would have already amounted enough contributors to help with writing articles as well as administrating the wiki for the load on me to not be too unbearable. I see issues with starting the wiki, or keeping the wiki going if it turns out there are very little contributors. I’m thinking of lowering the scope, growing a decent stable community, then expanding the scope later when things show themselves to be mostly stable.

This post is mostly intended on gauging interest to see how many might contribute if I were to heavily advertise it as well as to see what people would find useful in such a wiki. If it turns out very little are interested, or very little say they would find it useful, then I will drop the idea.

I guess the biggest problem I see is that some content may be commentary or opinionated, and you’d probably want to enforce what opinions are acceptable

I can totally see this being a problem, and the way I see of fixing this is by creating different categories of articles. One category could act encyclopedia/news-like, attempting to simply restate facts from an unbiased perspective(You might have one article that explains everything the current admin has done in relation to our nuclear arsenal, for example), whilst another category could act more like Wikipedia:Essays and essays/guides enjoyed/used by the community might be promoted to a third category of high quality guides and essays.

I think it may be hard to nail-down the scope of the project, and stuff like what are acceptable forms of resistance to write about.

I see this as a problem, much more then the first problem of yours I covered. I personally do not outsource my moral systems to laws or believe that because something is illegal it is always bad, but I also do not know if I would like to cover direct action. I think that if(when) fascism gets worse, direct action will begin to become necessary(if it is not already) so I am leaning on allowing the coverage of direct action, just not the more illegal-to-cover forms of it until fascism gets worse/the wiki is more secure.

1 & 2. Mediawiki(the same technology Wikipedia is ran on) has many tools that can be used to validate edits and prevent spam. You can lock important pages to only receive edits from admins, bots, autoconfirmed users, etc. You can require an email for creating an account, you can mass-delete pages created by spammers, you can create filters. There are many many extensions available to help in this too. For making sure content is high quality, we would probably set up some guidelines for content written on the site, and edit non-complying content to comply with standards. As the wiki would grow larger, these mechanisms could organically grow with it.

3. I don’t really believe lawsuits would be an issue (for now, at least) For the same reasons you cant sue Wikipedia for defamation, you wouldn’t be able to sue our wiki. Our wiki would have the legal defense of being a platform rather than a publisher(I assume that does not mean frivolous lawsuits could be damaging, though) I see lawsuits only becoming an issue if the wiki grows large, or as fascism gets worse.

I (and others who contribute the most/manage the wiki) generally would want to remain anonymous.

One very nice thing is that itt is fairly easy to just have a simple script that creates a daily dump of the entire wiki every day allowing for it to be easily put back up(Mediawiki software is easy to get running) incase the original host goes offline.

I only see these things (specifically the lawsuits) being an issue if the wiki were popular though.

No, I think people are more than just themselves, you need other people, you need community (and dick, dick works too)

Even if they were to, there is still the deep biosphere

The simple fact that there is an unnecessary amount of control given to a single person over the information and communication you share and consume automatically makes the environment this person controls an unsafe environment for free speech. Yes, there should be moderation, but it should by moderation by the community, not the person on the top of the unnecessary hierarchy. Centralized social media only serves its owners, it exists for no other reason.

The things being said here are a good start, but you cant do anything without other people. And if you and your community dont like the reccomended actions here? Make up your own plan with them! We cant just wait until we have the perfect plan to stop fascism and fix alll the world’s issues. We need to start working together now.