If I knew someone had shoved their wife violently I’d have a hard time seeing them in any other way.

A little further down on that page:

But sure, I guess you can insist on a specific definition from that particular definition if you feel the need to make that distinction to the exclusion of certain types of violence you personally don’t think are as severe. I’ll say it again: that distinction is without a meaningful difference. Might be meaningful to you, but not to victims of abuse.

Nah man, I don’t think that matters.

In the context of domestic abuse, it doesn’t matter if your spouse leaves a mark or physically injures you, it still creates an environment of fear for your physical safety. Displaying any willingness to cross that boundary with your spouse creates fear that they could cross it again, or go further. That’s what makes ‘beat your spouse’ such an evocative description to begin with. It isn’t supposed to be a precise classification of the type of violence you committed against them, just that you violated that physical barrier that shouldn’t be crossed. You can play semantic games and try finding a less objectionable term for it if you want, the truth is that even a slap or a shove is a severe betrayal of marital trust, and undermines the feeling of security that every person has a right to in their domestic environment. I think “beat” is a perfectly fine word to describe someone who willing to do that to their spouse.

A distinction without a meaningful difference. Throwing a punch at your spouse but missing is still you throwing a punch at your spouse.

Just because you didn’t make contact doesn’t mean you aren’t a danger

Fuck that, Israel should be carved out of Texas, not Palestine.

It will be much more cost effective to deliver our lethal aid within our own borders rather than across the Atlantic.

physical violence.

actually inflicting physical harm

What am I missing here? You don’t think ‘physical violence’ implies ‘physical harm’?

Oof.

There is nothing more painful to me than seeing an op-ed written about how shit ‘contemporary’ architecture is (‘contemporary’ being used as a description of style is usually a dead giveaway)- especially when there is quite a lot of shitty contemporary architecture. There are plenty of substantive discussions about what qualities make contemporary work successful, and which make them assaultingly ugly. But, invariably, those are not the discussions that get shared on public architecture forums. Instead, what we get is:

“Look at how ugly this [contemporary work] is. Look at how beautiful and amazing this [historically significant work of art] is. Why doesn’t anyone make [universally loved 18th century architecture] anymore?!”

Usually it’s not even any specific design motifs or genre’s that get the ‘ugly modernism’ treatment, it’s some abstract ‘feeling’ the author got when visiting one European cathedral or another that they just don’t get from anything that isn’t a historical landmark. Just look at this mindless slop and tell me that this person is doing anything other than reminiscing about their favorite vacation walking tours:

Of course, tradition has gotten a bad reputation, simply because most “neo-traditional” architecture is so bad and Disneylike. Recreations and pastiches are not the solution, and the mindless conservative love for everything Greek, Roman, and Victorian is a mistake. The point is not to just mindlessly love old things; that gets you McMansions. Rather, instead of recreating the exact look of traditional architecture, one should be trying to recreate the feeling that these old buildings give their viewers. Don’t build a plastic version of Venice. Build a city with canals and footbridges and ornate pastel houses dangling above the water, and give that city its own special identity

Suffice it to say that there is plenty of work being done that fits the author’s impossibly vague descriptions of ‘beauty’, they just aren’t a part of the Essential Architecture of [European tour-destination] listicles that get passed around at christmas. Nor should they be - architecture is complicated and messy, and it’s only in hindsight that they shed their complexities of reality and get sanitized into perfect beacons of beauty. This is contemporary. So is this.

Please keep these low-effort gripe pieces to your facebook groups, thank you.

yup. I haven’t done it yet, but apparently ceiling fan controllers are a pretty standard thing, so usually all you really have to do is replace the whole controller box (they’re like $30 apiece from what I remember), or replace the controller board itself like you mentioned.

I’ve stopped buying appliances from places like Home Depot for this reason, seems like they simply do not stock items that aren’t their brand-name cloud-hosted services, or larger brands like hue.

I’m pretty sure Minnesota imports something like 60% of our energy - i’m at least glad we’re past the worst of the winter weather but holy fuck is it going to suck

Idk but your little asspats are quite enjoyable if i’m being honest

Sorry, I must have mistook the multiple posts about this as an invitation for engagement

Goodness gracious, we are having quite the day with this.

Idk man, I don’t know many people who care this much about defining gender to the exclusion of others that aren’t fostering some form of bigoted prejudice, but you do you bud.

Given your exclusionary rhetoric I think it’s an apt comparison.

Maybe deal with your own prejudice instead of seeking validation in these silly support groups.

No, that’s for you and your ilk to decide, of course, and to call anyone who disagrees fascists and transphobes.

I haven’t called you a transphobe, at worst I accused you of being exclusionary, which as far as I can tell is actually what you are trying to be

No, because the weaponization of race as a point of comparison to gender is done so specifically because of it’s historical context - even though it is just as much of a social construct.

It’s apples and oranges, but if apples had been enslaved on the basis of not being bananas for centuries, and oranges were being accused of not being a real fruit at all.

Get over yourself. It’s not for you to decide what identities are legitimate or not.

They compare transgender identities with transracialism. Close though.

I’m sure they’d be happy to oblige

Instance banning isn’t going to stop him from posting it elsewhere and blahaj users from seeing it elsewhere.

No, but it will stop them from seeing it from that particular user in every instance, which is better than them still seeing that user air their grievance about it.

It’s less performative than just about any other act of moderation on lemmy.

It isn’t that surprising to me that you received an instance ban for breaking an instance rule, even if it happened somewhere else. Users in blahaj can still see your activity, even if it’s not taking place in their instance, and a rule that’s meant to protect instance users like that one needs to apply everywhere that instance might be active. I don’t think this is mod abuse at all.

I can’t advocate enough that people have multiple user accounts for this purpose, though. The fediverse is so diverse, with so much variation in mod standards, that everyone will eventually experience this. Not as a way to evade a ban, but just as an acknowledgement that different communities don’t play well with some other communities you might be a part of. That, on top of the fact that it’s just good opsec to rotate user accounts anyway.

I don’t think anyone is going to change your mind about the specific opinion that earned you the ban, though. You seem pretty locked-in.