Drag is banned from blahaj. Gatekeeping people's identities and pronouns is still against the rules.
And if it was a single comment, you'd have a point, but it was ongoing, repeated and deliberate arguments in a space that had explicit rules against what he was doing, rules that he understood. And rather than following the rules, or posting in other communities, he brought it up over and over again, arguing that he has the right to decide other people's identities.
And when banned for it, he made sure to keep adding flames to the fire.
Whatever else he is, he is not drama free.
ADHD doesn't work like that, and this whole discussion is full of the sort of responses ADHD folk get every day :\
You mean comment chain right :p
Someone hexed those cookies
Mostly because they used to rule the world, but everything they touched wasn't gold, it was all yellow
Hi, from another instance (technically two) that doesn't require emails!
Except research conducted by men like Sam Parnia rules that out and shows that conciousness persists after death.
That's not what he showed though. What he was saying is that brain death isn't the hard on/off line that we think it is, and that in some cases, it's possible to restore some brain function in a brain that had been declared to have died.
Only problem is that even if the person is barely clinging onto life there's still the issue of conciousness being strong and present where none can exist.
Sam Parnia quite explicitly talks about "restoration" of brain function. This does not mean that consciousness exists independent of the brain, he's stating that he believes we can return consciousness to some brains that we believe are beyond that point, and the boundary at which the brain/consciousness "dies" isn't quite as clear cut as it seems.
He also claims that the experience of consciousness might not be centered in the brain, despite interacting with it, but at this point, he is no longer backed by research or medical experience, and is just theorising.
Which is to say, the research and experiences he talks about do suggest that our "time of death" and treatment of brain death as a binary yes/no situation may be incorrect.
However, it doesn't say anything new in regards to life after death, souls, or anything along those lines, and Sam Parnia's talk in these areas is supposition rather than evidence based.
Same as the rest of the fediverse
Bear in mind, it's a ratio! As far as I understand it, anything above 50% means you upvote more than you downvote.
It specifically describes downvoting as being part of a bad attitude. Not sure I'm in agreement with that at all. So, to be perceived as having a great attitude, I'm supposed to love everything here 100%
Not quite. There is more on the fediverse than you could possibly vote on, up or down. Which means that the stuff you are voting on is the stuff you have curated in to your feeds, and decided needs interaction. And it's reasonable to say that if most of the stuff you are choosing to interact with is stuff that makes you hate vote it, then you're probably not carrying a positive attitude
Edit - And for what it's worth, you have a 100% attitude on my instance, because we have downvotes disabled! :)
To be fair, they were asking how blahaj.zone feels about the topic!