Yep. Lurker here. In the sense that I upvote but don’t post or create content. I am just not witty enough to make a joke or creative enough to write a long winded content. But I do what I do and I think it’s alright.
The nice thing about this right now is that you don’t need to feel witty or creative to post stuff as long as it fits the community you’re in. There aren’t enough people to compete with for posts to get attention, that’s the main attraction to smaller social media environments: you feel like you matter more.
This is largely a reddit-discourse problem that evolved over time as the site devolved into witty one-liners and adversarial comments for engagement.
I’m hoping people push back hard against this across various fediverse instances because it just makes the internet a worse place and discourages contributions from would-be posters/commenters.
People should feel excited to post without feeling the need to look over their post/comment 100 times to pre-emptively guess what all attack angles someone is going to respond to in a post as harmless about liking the way roses smell.
In a threaded site like Reddit or Lemmy, one liners and higher effort comments can coexist. I enjoyed the joking around, sing alongs, even the puns. Then you keep scrolling or collapse the thread and you can get to the more serious replies.
As long as the comments are in good faith or good fun and try to add something, I approve of them.
It was the bad faith stuff, people trying to compete in the victim Olympics (not saying that victims shouldn’t speak up, I mean the people who are just looking for the next thing to be offended about), and attention whoring that I didn’t like. Also the people obsessed with tying every conversation back to what group of people they hate or their political position or the political position they hate. Though I guess on the bright side, those ones did make me feel better about the possibility the world will end soon.
I’m primarily a lurker. I’ve been trying to be better about participating lately because I’d like to help the fediverse grow and be a meaningful online meeting place.
On the morning of August 6, 2004, James’s caretaker found him dead in his Los Angeles home at the Oakwood Toluca Hills apartment complex, just outside Burbank. He was 56 years old.
Scientists would end up causing a bigger genocide than a despotic politician could ever dream of. King, CEO, a farmer or a baker, whoever is put in charge should have to suffer the consequences of their failures too instead of being allowed to quietly shuffle off to cushy speaking gigs at the expense of wider society. Bring back decimations and obligatory seppuku for politicians, economists, central bankers and other policy makers I say. Even if it proves worse than the current regime in place, at least it will be an entertaining slide to hell.
I personally dream of a technocratic demarchy model of governance where decision makers are chosen randomly from a pool of qualified professionals who opt-in for a given field.
I read about this before. I do believe there is some merit in it. I work for a company that has traditionally moved engineers into management and I can say it has worked very well. That said, a government is not a corporation and there are human aspects that may be overlooked by some engineers. Or that would at least be some people’s concern.
The worst bosses I've ever had were highly technical people put into those roles because they were perceived to be the best with those skills. There was repeatedly little-to-no regard for their soft skills and working for those people was miserable.
I’m sorry to hear that. The way we have managed it has worked but some of that could be that the engineers that were promoted have always or mostly been able to empathize.
The thing about technocracy is that there need to be human concerns and philosophies driving whatever scientifically-driven policy-making it's being done.
Do it wrong and that's how we end up with eugenics. It's incredibly easy to justify horrible stuff using metrics, the essential questions that cannot be overlooked is what metrics ought to be valued and why, and science is not the right method to make the ultimate judgement of what the values of a society ought to be.
Please for the love of the gods don’t put engineers in charge of anything but engineering projects. You want someone to decide about bridges, dams, power, etc?We’re your people. You want someone do decide what rights people should have or economic policy? Keep us the fuck away we’re basically mad scientists.
I think there’s a balancing point where people in positions to exercise political will would use data to inform their decisions… I feel like that was probably the objective.
The point is not putting engineers in charge of everything. Engineers can make policy on infrastructure. Economists can make policy on the economy and sociologists can make policy on social issues. The point is to stop putting people in charge because they belong to party X or are really good friends with person Y.
Ok cool, I’ve seen plenty of people make the argument that stem people should be in charge instead of that we should be in charge of policy we’re experts of
en.wikipedia.org
Hot