You really notice how tight knit Lemmy is if you have user specific scores enabled or if you leave yourself tags for specific users. [+1] was already next to your comment for instance. Whenever I see double digits profiles I know those are usually regular posters.

It certainly doesn’t hurt. There are still plenty of Catholics listening to what the Pope says, especially at the Catholic schools and colleges across the country.

The art style was stabbing my eyes back then. I could not do the thick line character outlines in the setting they chose. If they had a different background art style it could have worked for me but that was not happening.

I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily tiny but they are a minority by far. 94/213 of the Democrats in the House are part of the progressive caucus for instance, which is 94/435 total seats in the House. Having 1/100 of the seats in the Senate by comparison.

Imo they just do what they can get away with. Which will continue for the foreseeable next three years at minimum.

For progressive change, it really needs to happen at the state level within Blue states. We need those programs passed at the state level and then we can sell how successful they are to the other states.

I agree, that’s why I feel that having more countries willing to stand together on certain points matters as well. The more people coming together to say something and stand by that, the more that message gets through, even to those that have selfish goals.

I wouldn’t say Americans are tricked, but a vote for positive change tends to be met with a vote for ‘changing nothing’ by someone on the other side of the aisle.

People’s best bets is really to focus on making their own states more progressive and pass those progressive programs at the state level. Banking on having the federal government pass the progressive programs people want is not going to work

People living in Purple and Red states are going to need to see Blue states thriving from progressive policies if they’re going to be convinced to change their voting habits. People living in Blue states should no longer be banking on doing the more caring option of passing progressive programs federally, instead Blue States should be willing to go into debt to fund these progressive programs.

I believe that’s an overstatement, not all politicians are corrupt. There are many members of Congress that are working to make things better and pass progressive legislation. AOC and Bernie for instance haven’t been silenced and replaced by big corporations.

I agree with you that the US’ federal Congress is more pro-billionaire, but there are still people that want to make things better. The issue is that those people do not have the votes to pass progressive legislation. Lots of people are seemingly happy with the status quo given that half of the states predominantly vote Republican each election cycle.

Even authoritarian governments can be swayed when money is on the line, imo. If countries enforce standards via an international trade deal, anyone that doesn’t play ball by the rules could be incentivized to change if they want a cut of the pie.

Take non-ethical working conditions for example. If every country said they will not do business with a country that doesn’t implement ethical working standards then that country could be incentivized to change. If there was a requirement for third party auditors to be able to regularly verify that those standards are being upheld then that could help ensure that those basic standards are being met even in authoritarian countries.

That’s good that you are trying different things out, you really want to be casting a wide net to find your perfect matches. I’m of the belief that there’s probably only about ~5%-10% of the population that’s we are a perfect match for and vice versa, but that’s still a ton of real people and many of them may not be on dating apps.

I’ve been coaching a friend of mine that has had similar answers as you. He tried a different app and his match rate was still close to zero, if not zero. Oddly when he turned one year older his match rate went up a lot, so maybe there was a decent amount of women he was attracted to that wanted someone a bit older and more mature.

That’s good that you have had a friend look over your profile. I feel that dating profiles specifically are a bit clickbait-ish. Having some good quality photos couldn’t hurt your chances to having a conversation, do you have any pictures that show you socializing with peers and other women? I would encourage you to ask any women that are friends SOs or family to help give another look over your pictures and even your bio.

What I liked about some of the friend finding apps I mentioned is you could reach out without having to match with anyone. I was shocked at how many more conversations I was having with even people less than 5-10 minutes away from me.

That’s totally understandable to be limiting the amount of events for your own health. Being able to have fun while going out is an important part of it.

It’s okay to focus on yourself a bit more as well. I feel that dating comes second to your mental health. It’s important to show yourself some love to be able to share that same love with others. Growth and change don’t have to be linear, each step you take is worth the effort even if you feel like it’s been up and down. Self-optimizing feels like it should be helpful, until those shortcuts start hurting, as I’ve been sorely learning lol.

I recommend taking breaks from looking whenever you’re feeling burnt out, for your own sake. Sometimes it can be where you are that is impacting your outlooks. For instance if you’re trying to meet up with nerdy women in an area that isn’t very nerd friendly then there can be less nerdy women around your local area, at least on some of the apps.

I feel like so much of it really is about time and place being the main factors for finding your match. The owners of the dating apps want you to be on their dating apps as long as possible because they profit from it. Men and women get sick of these platform and pay for the pro-features that put their profile at the top of the stack for others to view. Many issues with modern dating is caused by these for-profit dating apps.

Are you liking lots of people on these apps or are you very selective about how you give out likes? If you’re not very selective you’re probably being flagged as a bot and it’s putting your profile at the bottom of the stack of profiles.

Are you using friend finding apps as well? I found that on those, the expectations are way more normal. If the goal is just to meet someone cool and then there could be a relationship after then that already lowers those guardrails that the dating apps cause, from my experience.

I highly recommend changing your approach if what you are currently doing is not working. I recommend joining a running or biking group local to meet people, or even looking for speed dating events in your city.

I guarantee there are people out there that would match your tempo perfectly. The caveat is putting yourself in spaces to meet these potential matches. Do you read, have any pets, or have any fun hobbies a potential partner would find attractive? If you do have any of these things, then mentioning it in your profiles and such can matter.

Someone I know, that I was strongly convinced was going to marry a body pillow, is married to a woman he has dated for a few years now. I firmly believe that there is hope for anyone to find a perfect partner. The crux is that you might have to change what you are doing to encounter some of these people.

I highly recommend using friend meeting apps, going to social events like running/biking clubs, or even going to a speed dating event in a city near you. There are countless perfect matches for you out there, but putting yourself in the right spaces to meet these people is what matters.

Those dating apps flag your account as likely a bot if you’re swiping “like” very often. These apps put you at the bottom of the ‘stack’ on these ‘like lists’ for women, so your account is literally never coming up for them to see you. If what you’re currently doing isn’t working it’s important to try something else, just like you might do when you’re out fishing.

I know some organizations are run co-op style, where the workers are the owners, so it’s currently something viable.

I would believe that to see broader change like that at a wider level would require some protections though.

I feel that UBI would be an easier first sell, since it doesn’t directly shake up existing systems for organizations. If you’re interested in starting a co-op of your own though there are some helpful resources out there still.

I’m kinda surprised most coffee shops are not 100% co-ops tbh. If they were, it would help the workers get around the shady practices of big companies like Starbucks that shutdown shops attempting to unionize.

I would be more than happy to have those fruits of labor be redistributed, via Universal Basic Income. Then at least my basic needs getting met is not tied to working a specific job.

I’m in favor of other cool things too though like more public housing rental units and Universal Healthcare as well. Even having college be free for everyone would be a net gain for society as a whole.

When education is purposefully defunded and left to rot for decades now, is it really that surprising things are the way they are? When voters are more educated, they tend to vote Democrat.

If a country wants to prevent this, then it needs protections that can’t go away for education. Furthermore, media companies need to be held to higher standards of reporting, and at this point I feel that influencers should fall under that bucket as well.

Personally, I don’t hate the idea of tying the ability to vote behind getting any Associates Degree. With the caveat that the college would need to be free and accessible to anyone that wishes to go, with a room and food expenses covered to accommodate people. I feel this is a fairer way to get Aristotle’s idea of restricting voting to the educated.

The demographics have changed quite a bit in the Baby Boomer crowd, maybe cause of Covid? Baby Boomers are more left leaning than Gen X for instance, at least based on 2024’s election data, in the US. Both still overwhelmingly vote right-wing, but Baby Boomers are 48% left wing and 51% right wing.

BlueSky has handy user level moderation tools, with block/mute lists that you can subscribe to. There are also the default moderation settings that anre enabled for users to cut down on the amount of misinformation you are exposed to.

The best way to deal with misinformation is to starve it of views via subscribing to block/mute lists and keeping those default moderation tools on.

Biden was pro-Israel, I don’t see him personally having the funds stopped since he believed whatever he was being told about them trying their best and using the funds and weapons for defense only. Harris was not pro-Israel, imo, but she was directed to be lock-step with Biden on the campaign trail and not piss off the pro-Israel PACs.

We know that Netanyahu and Biden were working on a peace deal. There were some reports that this peace deal was pushed back though due to Trump and Netanyahu talking. It’s possible that Israel saw the ability to push the deal back as a win-win. Israel was going to have to scale things back quite a lot under Harris.

From Netanyahu’s own perspective it was more advantageous to them if this was an issue for US voters, and they’ve more or less been given more power to do what they want. Also since Trump has not come down hard on how they did engagement. I believe this is why the peace deal did not happen before the election, despite it being pushed for. Plus they already knew Biden wasn’t going to play hardball with them.

There were lots of different parts at play in 2024 ultimately which made it quite a mess. Both political parties receiving notable donations from pro-Israel PACs definitely made the situation more complicated, especially when some of those PACs would run ads that heavily implied false claims about those candidates that weren’t avidly pro-Israel.

FFS, why have you been gatekeeping this from me for so long :(

This is the type of statement to commend. It’s a big risk for Seth to openly step away from AIPAC, as they may try to primary him for doing so. Hopefully this will encourage others in leadership positions to follow suit.

This also shows that the pressure we are putting on is working. I believe this same pressure should be kept up, and we should continue to give politicians the chance to walk away from these pro-Israel PACs or face being primaried if they do not.

Severance be like: