I end up not commenting because I try to proofread and while doing it I notice I don’t care enough about whatever or my comment doesn’t really matter and just cancel de comment.
we’re in a golden age before corporations, bots, and racist dumbasses come, we’re not popular enough to attract people so the only ones here are foss enthusiasts and i know this is elitist but theres definitely a correlation between that and not being a weirdo jackass. once this gets more popular get ready for the shit hurdling and over moderation again. sorry to burst your bubble. i love this community
It’s kinda like when you filter reviews and everything is either 5 stars or 1 stars. Most people will only comment if they feel strongly about something and unfortunately we live in an outrage culture, so the majority of interactions will be negative. Very rarely will someone put the effort to reply to something they feel ambivalent towards
I’ve noticed that. Everything’s become so black-and-white and lacking in nuance that people feel like they absolutely must fit into one box or the other. ugh
I think the way we argue over labels hurts us. If I use heavy regulation and government aid to limit the abuses in a capitalist system, at what point does the label change to “socialism”? I think we do ourselves a disservice to create these strict conceptions of systems like capitalism, socialism, or communism. Then when one fails we get to say “well that wasn’t true x”. And the labels allow people to boogeyman an idea. And worst of all, we eliminate the possibility to take good lessons from multiple different systems and incorporate them into our system. I think we would be better served promoting policies on a case by case basis instead of using these huge words. And to be clear, I’m a bit of a hypocrite here. I’ve been mostly telling people I’m a “social democrat” or that I support “capitalism with heavy regulations”. But even those words can get picked apart and don’t really capture nuance. My main point is that I think this thread is a perfect encapsulation of how these arguments stop us from getting behind good policies when we bicker about the definitions of words that mean different things to different people.
Yeah. Like saying you believe that companies beyond a certain size should be legally required to seek a vote from their employees before implementing certain types of changes is a real policy to argue about. Call it democratizing business or whatever you want. And then that’s an actual concrete issue we can argue about. Or if you believe in the government buying out businesses beyond a certain size, that’s a specific conversation we can have and we can discuss the hypothetical implementation of that. Call it business seizure or whatever. Just saying “I believe in socialism” doesn’t dig enough into the details of how you perceive socialism or how you would implement it. And frankly, I think it hurts the socialists or communists or whoever is trying to persuade the current culture away from what we have more than anybody else. Ideas grow when you make real, concrete proposals. These exceedingly large scale labels usually end up killing a conversation rather than feeding it. Someone gets mad at a label and then everything shuts down on that sticking point.
Look, PETA is not exactly the model organization they think they are. Actually they have plenty of issues and hypocrisy with their own messages and IMO are by no means a credible or reliable source. BUT, credit where credit’s due, their shitpost that everyone hated got more discussion from both sides on the realities of the meat industry than any whistleblower or researcher publishing a paper on the conditions of industrialized meat farming, its environmental and climate implications. More engagement from this than pretty much any measured response, analysis, or criticism of the meat industry or the ethics of eating meat that has ever come out. This thread is an example of that.
That might say more about the nature of internet culture and what people will actually respond to and engage with than anything else. Obviously in an ideal world everyone will engage way more with those whistleblower and scientific researcher findings and organizations like PETA wouldn’t even exist, and it would be the measured responses that will be the things triggering discussion on subjects like plant-based meat and veganism, probably a much more level headed discussion since that tend to be more dependent on the context of the discussion than the subject itself, and we really should be working toward that. But, I think that’s still a silver lining because we absolutely need to be having these discussions.
Always treat your job as a transactional arrangement between you and your employer. You’re not a family, you don’t owe the employer any loyalty. The arrangement is that you have skills the employer desires and they pay you a rate you’re willing to accept for the use of those skills. That’s the deal.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.