Normal oral sex does not damage your voice or throat. Maybe if you’re doing really rough deep throat or something but most people don’t enjoy that anyway.

Well AWS is much harder to avoid that’s true. I’m not sure how you can even tell if a site is working with them. Only way to be sure would be to never go online.

True that’s the main reason I would shop online because some things can’t be purchased otherwise. But I don’t run into that super often.

Next time I’ll pay attention to see if Amazon is involved in some way… I have been boycotting them for a few years now and would like to continue that as best I can. Frankly, with how awful their site has become I haven’t missed it much.

Really? You mean like other websites you buy from are secretly owned by Amazon?

So maybe there is more to discuss here than I thought.

Still I’m a big proponent of brick and mortar shopping. Or better yet, borrow from a friend or freecycle. So I rarely buy things online anyway.

I just buy most things in person. If that fails I do a web search and buy from another platform. So I’m not sure how much there is to talk about but maybe I’m missing something.

If you have questions or ideas/resources it probably makes the most sense to just post on the existing de-Amazon com, since the audience there is likely to be interested. With the size of Lemmy it’s important not to separate our communities that are too niche, or they won’t really fire.

Shouldn’t the logic be the other way? Why would you need to?

I’ve never had to do this and there’s never been an issue so it seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.

Well I’m just saying that the elimination of “criminals” does reduce crime in a sense. I personally don’t think it’s a very ethical means of doing so but it is effective.

If I trusted my friend so deeply that they would not judge or harm me in any way I wouldn’t mind if they saw my whole life. But that’s a lot of trust that isn’t very realistic, especially for a detached and unaccountable government.

Well I think this is a bit contradictory. Dissidence is merely one form of crime from the state’s perspective. So it is somewhat effective at reducing behavior the state will punish, though not completely effective obviously.

Now I would agree that the harm here is not worth it. If you had a completely trusted authority that only used it in a responsible way for serious crimes then it could be useful but I don’t see how that could happen.

You don’t. The US can’t be fixed until the people want it to be fixed. And right now they don’t.

Pretty much the entire will of the people album by Muse: https://youtu.be/tCiDblgUNEA

Yeah people love to complain about rain in Seattle but some parts of the coast here get around double that amount of rain.

All good points but you also forgot to mention another key factor. This is more or less the rainiest region in the country. It’s extremely wet and most people don’t like that.

Nah I just think it’s funny you think you’re some brave truth teller lol

Sorry that was grammatically unclear. I meant opposing restrictions on abortion. I agree with you.

No one cares about your opinions lol. How are you not getting this?

Starting to remind me a bit of a yappy dog…

I never claimed to endorse that view. You certainly can be downvoted for speaking truth. That’s just not the case here.

Usually this is the case when you are polite and articulate but get no serious replies and only downvotes. In other words, people downvote because they can’t dispute what you’re saying.

When you post a snarky one-liner that ignores the question at hand in favor of some belligerent tribal attitude, that’s just a low quality comment that belongs at the bottom of the thread. There’s nothing to contest because there’s no substance, so downvotes are the most appropriate response.

There is a weird contingent of “libertarians” who are very close to just fascists who hate taxes. It makes no sense but I attribute it to the political magnetism of Trump and similar fascist leaders. These people clearly don’t fit any sane definition of libertarian but I think they just continue to identify that way because they used to and they aren’t aware they’ve gone off the deep end.

They aren’t all like that though.

However, I disagree that there aren’t valid justifications for some of the specific examples you gave that go beyond a desire to repress people. Some people have been deeply harmed by the state and do not wish to be subject to its logic or control and I respect that choice.

Or maybe it just doesn’t answer the question lol.

“I’m downvoted, it must be because I’m right!” is a very silly conclusion here.

Keep in mind that a lot of political words are contentious and can have multiple definitions.

But in the broadest senses, a libertarian would be someone who orients their politics towards the pursuit or protection of liberty. This can take many forms. In the US at least, many libertarians tend to focus on reducing government interventions in their lives, opposing things like taxes, gun control, abortion and speech restrictions, etc.

Anarchists could be considered a subset of libertarians. However, they go much further in that they believe in the total abolition of the state. Most anarchists also believe in the total abolition of all relationships involving the domination of people by other people. This typically includes things like capitalism, racial hierarchies, gender hierarchies, or even hierarchies over children.

So a quick distinction might be that libertarians want a minimal state while anarchists want no state.

Well this actually happened to me so I can speak from experience when I say mildly surprised. He’s a distant cousin though so maybe it would have been a bigger surprise if it was a first cousin. He married an heiress.