The operative word is “mandatory”. Medical professionals should have a level of discretion available to them, since not all treatments work for all people, even if it wasn’t such an ineffective treatment being discussed.

There it is!

I don’t know if you’re interpreting the situation the same as I am. From my perspective, the other commenter and I are having a pretty genuine discussion from two different points of view about the issue. Being ambivalent or apathetic about the inclusion of pronouns in the email signatures does not preclude someone from joining into the conversation, and it also doesn’t preclude someone from having a strong opinion about the surrounding context.

They aren’t debating whether or not people should be allowed to use any particular pronouns, just stating a pretty valid opinion that it shouldn’t be all that important and in their lived experience it hasn’t been. For what it’s worth, I actually agree with that stance in a certain sense. I don’t think we as a society should be placing any stock into gender or sex or sexuality as something that needs to be declared. However, while we do, and while we still have people ostracising and attacking others for being true to themselves, these are issues that need to be tackled. Maybe one day everyone will be on the same page and we can do away with the social construct of gender all together, and maybe we won’t.

I really don’t see anything in their comments that indicates they are secretly hateful. I especially don’t see enough to presume anything about them as an individual.

Very relevant anecdote! There are definitely a lot of different attitudes to names and pronouns outside the context of gender identity. I personally don’t really mind when people get my name wrong, I’ve got a common name spelt a little differently. On the flip side I’ve worked with “Matt”'s that are very serious about not being called “Mat”, and others still who will refuse to respond if you shorten their full name.

That’s a good point. Honestly, given other headlines I’ve seen and also things I’ve experienced in my own working life it wouldn’t surprise me if HR or legal wasn’t involved (or were steam rolled by a signature happy leader surrounded by too many yes-men). In saying that, I’d think it’s more likely that they were.

This comment will serve as my springboard to go and find my favourite, gender neutral word for “yes-man”.

What about people named Ashley. Or Courtney. Or Kelly. Or Sam. Etc.

Plenty of other commenters here who are similarly ambivalent to pronouns have provided reasons that they can understand their practicality if nothing else.

Sure, for a lot of people being misgendered is nothing but a minor inconvenience. For someone who is used to being intentionally misgendered out of spite, such a small change makes a big difference.

If being misgendered in emails was the only problem trans and non-binary people faced in the world, then maybe saying people should get over it is fine. That isn’t the case. This is just one of a million things someone in that situation might experience each day that acts as a barrier to participating in society and it is such an easy one to change. In fact, the situation in question was already working fine. Effort was put in, in response to some misguided outrage, to actively prevent the simple solution.

I understand your position of apathy, and maybe if the cost of addressing this particular issue was high, it would make sense to weigh up the solution, but the cost of this is nil so why not facilitate an easier world for all people.

Wow private servers aren’t uncommon, although I do think they violate the TOS as it stands. I imagine people would continue to use those in the event blizzard shuts the official servers down.

If you don’t have it already, maybe you should look at a steam deck in the future. I find it to be really good for times in my life when my time to play is limited, and a better source of unwinding than just mindlessly scrolling Lemmy or Instagram when I have a spare 15.

My opinion is it would be better in some ways and worse in others. I think it’s worth striving for some Star-Trek-esque version of humanity, where we are well and truly post-scarcity and have outgrown many/most of our more toxic traits as a species, and I think globalisation is the only way to achieve anything close to that.

I also acknowledge that to believe that end result is a certainty rather than a possibility is completely naive. I guess it’s a matter of opinion if the risk that we either wipe ourselves out on the way to that goal, or we just literally can’t overcome tribalism and greed, is worth chancing it.

Either way we’re probably too far gone! I have seen interesting studies here or there though, that indicate the current generation of new parents are far more aware of the dangers of such a technologically enriched lifestyle for children, and that things are turning back in the other direction. So who knows.

I think my point was that the chamber of commerce are not lawmakers or judges, but people representing corporate interests

I’m sure the regulator isn’t going to be offended.

Another commenter in this thread noted that the chamber of commerce is just a right wing lobby group, completely separate to the department of commerce. Not sure if you know that already, but I think it basically aligns to the view of the comment you replied to.

People moving away from Microsoft is literally how Microsoft will be held accountable though

What about the reverse? Exploiting a security vulnerability and getting access to sensitive data that you then use for financial gain shouldn’t be a crime? Going into a house with poor quality locks and stealing things?

I’m not trying to side with big corporations here but I think you’re getting the precedent issue the wrong way around. If the actions of that person weren’t a crime, it’d be a bigger problem.

The underlying issue, that people are pushed into theft out of desperation, is far worse. I make no moral judgement of this person because I don’t know their circumstances. But I don’t think whether it is a crime or not can really be debated.

I don’t know if @Hackerman_uwu is enough? I’m writing this comment to test it

Maybe !Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world

Edit: nope neither of those work

The browser versions aren’t too awful, if that’s an option.

Easy enough to imply it from all of the other comments in the thread, and the fact that the op referred to the ThinkPad in the title. You’re correct, and it’s not your fault the op used the wrong word, but context indicates that they were talking about desktop PCs.

Dogmatic cult bullshit? A fight? Do you realise I’m not the original person you replied to? I’m not proselytising, I just want to know what your stance is because I’m curious. People don’t make claims in debates, you’re meant to use facts to support a point of view and identify gaps in opposing arguments.

I’m also not really here to change your stance. I don’t have a political agenda, I have an opinion, and I asked genuine questions out of a desire to have that opinion challenged and maybe reconsider my own point of view. You don’t need to “play along”, you chose to post on a discussion forum and should expect to have your post discussed.

The reason I brought up punishment is because it’s super relevant to the idea of innocence and guilt in the world most of us live in today - one where guilt is punished. I’m not some Blackstone worshipper, I know literally nothing about them as a historical figure and couldn’t have attributed the quote before today.

I’m sorry if you’re having a bad day, or if the way I’ve said what I wanted to say came across as aggressive or insincere, I was intending to ask legitimate questions and maybe, in this corner of the internet, a handful of people could have walked away with a better understanding of others.

Also, I appreciate that you’ve since edited your original comment to say “claim”. It would’ve been good if you’d admitted to your mistake, instead of assuming I was out to get you.

You’re not really making a point, you’re making a claim. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you haven’t really said any reason why you think society can’t function when they value protecting the rights of the innocent over guaranteeing 100% of the guilty are punished.

When you say “our present circumstances prove that point”, are you saying that all of society’s problems can be linked to jury nullification? Or to the fact your jurisdiction is too light handed with criminals, or felons, or both? It’s a very bold, very vague claim, considering it’s well studied that rehabilitative/educational and not punitive measures are more effective at reducing crime, so making the current system more heavy handed doesn’t seem to be the answer, if one exists.

It’s not for sport, but it’s by the same means anyone with even remotely complex assets gets tax advantages. You pay someone to manage your tax returns for you. You will naturally, by trial and error and recommendations from friends (and in the case of these billionaires, probably have accountants knocking on your door asking to do your returns for hefty fees), end up with the person (or organisation) who saves you the most money, because why wouldn’t you?

Now, you’re still liable for not paying tax you should’ve paid, but I don’t think people are going out of their way to find tax loopholes. Accountants do that for them, and there is absolutely no incentive to find an accountant that’s more “ethical” because, for that industry, it makes no sense to do anything other than get the most back for your clients.

You’re right though. There would be no tangible impact to these people’s lives, and it’s for this reason they should all be supportive of increasing the tax they pay.

My doctor gave me four months to live.