As someone who was recently laid off, I can identify. I didn’t see it immediately, but was able to travel to Arizona to catch some spring training baseball with my son and brother. That was all I needed to bounce back. On Monday I start a new job at a healthier company making 25% more money.
We will never consumer our way of of a problem capitalism created. And public transit is nearly always a better solution to spending on car infrastructure.
… but… If you’re gonna buy a new car anyway, they have the potential to cause less climate impact (although they’re still environmentally devastating in other ways). As power generation becomes cleaner, so too do the cars. ICE cars are already about as environmentally friendly as they’re gonna get, but EVs still have a lot of potential improvement (both in emissions and in things like material mining).
Although the tire microplastics is gonna get worse.
They already do cause less of an impact than ICE powered cars. Anyone can Google the information that shows that even though battery production is unclean, fossil fuel production over the life of a car is worse.
If the EV last for more than about 5 years, it was worth it.
Jeez, buncha moneybags around here that don’t like a joke, huh?
What job forces people to lease new cars? Sounds like the job should be providing them if it’s gonna be like that, like they do with cell phones they require you to use as “work phones.”
I don't understand it either, but still, there is a very active used car market these days. It's not like those 5 year old cars are getting thrown in the dump.
But like you said, it's not what the original poster meant. That's just the cutoff for when it is less environmentally harmful than an ICE car.
That’s the break even point for the environmental benefits to overtake production negatives for evs…what the fuck are you talking about? Of course they last longer then that that’s my fucking point you dipshit
If the EV last for more than about 5 years, it was worth it.
This is the crux of the joke, the joke being that I am too poor to afford a car every five years, which subverts the expectation of “what you were actually talking about.”
I even said “I know that isn’t what you meant but it made me chuckle.” You really didn’t get the joke?
That says more about you being a dipshit than it does me, frankly, considering I literally told you it was a joke.
5 Years… This is part of the problem… What happens to this car after 5 years, it gets “recycled”. The metal does and the rest goes into a landfill to gas off. Micro plastics are just part of it, the gasses are a major polluter too. The reason you can own and keep your old car is that they were built to last, our current disposable society is the problem. Electric cars are dirty! Let go dig massive hole in the desert, lets separate the wanted materials out with lovely chemicals, then we can throw it all away. So clean… Right to repair, build to last, and strong public transport is the way to go.
No one is recycling still-working cars after only 5 years. Unless you’re talking about insurance deciding to salvage a vehicle after a wreck, which is a different story. Even those don’t always get destroyed, some are parted out and some are probably shipped overseas to get a second life.
New cars are cheaply made, with parts that sold in modules (parts attached to other parts) and are by far more expensive then their older counterparts. They also have been engineered to be a pain for mechanics to work on, they are no longer built to last or be repair friendly. Many parts are engineered with fasteners that break when you remove them, not making them friendly to being parted out. As for EV’s they are a dirty bandaid to a dirty problem, the batteries alone are, made with rare earth metals lithium, manganese and cobalt. These are all pulled out of the earth using chemicals to separate the materials, these mining areas may never fully recover the impact is huge. We still do not have the technology to recycle them, they just like plastics are not fully recyclable. We could build an affordable, repair friendly car that would be a great trade in for Dads old beater, but that wouldn’t get you into a New Ford Crapbox Deluxe.
So cars are not cheaply made, nor are they unfriendly to repair. The experiences that my family members and I, who have worked on repairing cars is a mass delusion. Not to mention those delusional mechanics that have shared their stories. Everything is recyclable, mines are clean and beautiful. Is that better. Lets be happy!
Phew! My electric car made it five years, right to the theoretical break even point with a gas car. What will I do now? Keep driving it? No, I have a better idea. Drive it off of a cliff and go buy a new one. Yep, I love throwing money away for no reason.
Yeah but by the time some of that potential is realised, your brand new EV is now a few years old and almost worthless cos the batteries are next to useless.
Most of the criticisms that come from the right are solvable problems, such as lack of chargers, electricity coming from dirty sources, or lithium mining. We pretty much know how to solve all those at this point. Just a matter of doing it.
Criticisms that come from the left tend to be more fundamental. Things like car-based cities being too spread out, infrastructure costs spiraling out of control, or having the average person operate a 2 ton vehicle at speeds over 60mph and expecting this to be safe. None of those are specific to EVs, and are only solvable by looking at different transportation options.
The problems you’re describing from vthe right and the left are really the same problems. They’re just expressing their perception of them differently. Infrastructure solutions and spiraling costs are more challenging in less dense areas where the right tends to hold more sway. It isn’t a simple, cost effective answer. Yet.
Oceanic sources. The projects getting underway are focusing on brine pools like California’s Salton Sea, but sea water sources of lithium in general are basically indefinite, and can work anywhere with a coastline. Other harvested salts may also produce useful byproducts, and you may even be able to run it as part of a general desalination plant for freshwater.
Seawater contains 230 billion tons of lithium, compared to just 21 million tons in conventional land-based reserves. Lihytech estimates that extracting just 0.1 per cent of all lithium from seawater would be enough to meet humanity’s technology needs.
Plenty, yes. If someone revealed they’re a girl aged 13-16, they’d get flooded with DMs asking for nudes. And dick pics. Always many of such screenshots around.
Lmao it pains me every time I think of my prior behavior as a kid on the net. Becoming an adult, I was not prepared to face the shame of my behavior simply due to my lack of understanding. I genuinely thought I knew. ugh.
It's not decorating. This is a 215SF studio in Brooklyn - that's the "parking included" feature of the listing. And he's paying an extra $1200 a month for the privilege.
Uber eats etc pulled all the money out of the community. No longer does the restaurant make money and pay a little bit to the driver, who back in the day might have been the owner or the owners kids. No, now the restaurant margins are impossibly thin and so the food is shit, and the driver isn’t an employee and spends it all on gas and oil changes.
Uber eats takes all the money and sends it to investors.
Uber and all the other Ubers for X no longer provide a service. They made an app that helps deliver goods and services, but now what? If we nationalized these companies and made them owned by the people, or the people in that industry, we could actually keep the money in your own city.
Instead we have $80 pizzas and poor, disaffected workers.
In theory, the delivery charge should have been the money that goes to Uber to cover their costs. It’s expensive to develop quality web apps, manage drivers, do customer support, etc. But in practice, Uber double dips. There’s the delivery fee and restaurant paid fees (often resulting in higher menu prices).
This makes me curious, now. I ordered pizza this weekend and there’s the $5 delivery charge. Plus we tip, of course. But I do order through the app. So if that $5 is going toward app maintenance or whatnot, I wonder if calling them directly to place a delivery order will eliminate that extra $5 fee. Somehow I doubt it.
I purposely avoid delivery apps and will frequently simply call ahead to order for pickup. It varies by business but usually you pay exactly the same ordering ahead by calling them as you would rolling right up and ordering to go in person
It’s a useful (though non-essential) service that leans toward a natural monopoly. Nationalisation or heavy regulation are the solutions to this.
Under regulation, profits flow to shareholders. Under nationalisation, they flow to treasury. Practicality of nationalisation in the current climate aside, I know which I’d prefer.
It’s a profitable service, like the post office was before they were sabotaged with pension requirements. Users would still be the ones paying, but a greater portion of the profits could go to the workers, and the remainder would go to public projects and other government expenses. That would be preferable to the services being used to continue drawing wealth and power from the working classes to the already wealthy and powerful. The only time it might end up subsidized is if it had to be commandeered for a public use purpose like delivery of food and living essentials during a disease outbreak.
Convenience isn’t the factor here - having a network of delivery drivers, many of whom can remain productive transporting people when they’d otherwise be idle, having established relationships with restaurants, the support infrastructure to work with them a, tech platform and a user base makes it difficult for new entrants.
…i could order from newdelivery with the 3 restaurants they’ve managed to sign, or I could use uber.
Except almost none of them did. You’re suggesting going back to having next to zero food delivery options in a world that continues to see COVID spikes and could have future localized lockdowns. I also think this overlooks how much of a QoL increase these services are for people with limited transportation options or mobility problems or other health issues making it hard for them to get out of the house. These services are more than just conveniences to them. They are massive upgrades to their lives.
Maybe it’s different where you live, but over here many restaurants did have their own delivery service before Just Eat etc. entered the market. In the beginning, they made things cheaper and easier for the restaurants. But recently, I read a lot about how they increased the fees for the restaurants, who would encourage customers to go back to using their own website instead. Enshittification as always.
Definitely different in the US. The restaurant has to carry a special type of insurance that is ridiculously expensive if they employ delivery drivers. There’s an even more expensive insurance that no restaurant will get that would allow them to own the vehicles.
Only because I want to see how Right wing “Christians” would react to being faced with their messiah being a middle-eastern globalist communist that preaches love and acceptance.
Copied from Reddit user Right-Fisherman-1234 detailing the accounts of the Republican parties documented history of sexual misconduct.
Ummmm ok?
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a 16 year old girl when he was 28.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. “Republican Marty”), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a “good military man” and “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women
Donald Trump walked into Miss Teen USA change rooms with girls as young as 14 changing. He has been accused of raping a 13 -year-old with an independent witness.
Being overly defensive after being purposely deceptive you may not support them but you’d fit right in
That being said I’m not American and I don’t support either party either but you certainly gave the impression you did. Because the only place that uses the right and the left like that is generally the United States everywhere else I’ve been to use the actual party names
Honestly this time, instead of crucifying him, we really should strap him down to a table and put him in a lab to see if we can figure out some more medical modern miracles before he rage quits to heaven again.
Not like anyone on this Earth is going to gain anything from listening to his actual teachings or anything.
My first thought was he’d be cancelled or get crucified again. He’d need to show some full on magic to get our attention today. Water to wine or walking on water is too “street magic” today.
There’s still time for the DNC to swap Biden out for a more electable candidate and energize their own base again, for what it’s worth, though at this point I think the DNC wants to lose so they can secure more funding.
The US state department doesn’t decide which countries own or control which territory, now does it? How exactly can you say territory you don’t control (neither legally nor militarily) and likely will never control is part of your own country? Furthermore, why would the US risk ruining trade relations with China over unnecessarily pointing out reality, when it doesn’t benefit the US to recognize Taiwanese independence?
I’ll say it again: Why would countries risk ruining trade relations with China, one of the three most important trade powers internationally, over unnecessarily pointing out reality and thus contradicting China? And how can you seriously say territory a country doesn’t control in any capacity at all theirs? Why do you think a majority of world powers are independently trading with Taiwan if Taiwan isn’t independent from China?
Don’t you think China would, you know, not be constantly complaining about not having control over Taiwan for the past few decades and making bluffs about invading if Taiwan were already part of China? That’s a pretty obvious sign that “no, China doesn’t own Taiwan in any capacity”.
What you’re doing here is called sophistry. Taiwan being part of China is a fact that’s recognized by international law. It’s really that simple. The reality is that China could remove US sponsored regime in the rogue province any time they want. However, they realize that it’s much better to remove burgerland influence in a peaceful way, and that’s what will happen. It’s incredible how people have trouble grasping such basic things.
edit: I aboslutely love how utterly enraged lemmy radlibs get when faced with reality
What you’re doing here is called sophistry. Taiwan being part of China is a fact that’s recognized by international law.
Tell me you have no idea how the UN works without explicitly saying so. A majority of countries not recognizing Taiwan doesn’t mean it’s “international law” that Taiwan isn’t independent.
It’s really that simple. The reality is that China could remove US sponsored regime in the rogue province any time they want.
LMAO this is such a cope. Yeah I’m sure the extremely aggressive all-bark-no-bite and constant “you better not do <x diplomacy with Taiwan or military action in Taiwanese strait/South China Sea> again or we’ll do something about it, I swear!” empire is suuuper capable of taking Taiwan. They know if they tried full-out war against the US or its allies (Taiwan), the US navy would cut off their international trade and turn their country upside down – it’s why they’re trying so hard (and failing) to seize full control of the South China Sea.
However, they realize that it’s much better to remove burgerland influence in a peaceful way, and that’s what will happen.
Again, absolute cope. They’ve been at it for over 75 years and haven’t made any progress, considering Taiwanese have developed significantly more national identity and even more people in Taiwan support the country participating in international relations under the name “Taiwan” (80%) and consider themselves primarily Taiwanese (90%), and only 6% consider themselves more Chinese than Taiwanese (more people considered themselves primarily Chinese many decades ago but that has long since dwindled).
It’s incredible how people have trouble grasping such basic things.
It’s incredible how you have trouble grasping the situation and think China is going to “peacefully” absorb Taiwan when Taiwan is farther from China than ever in terms of national identity and international participation.
Several polls have indicated an increase in support of Taiwanese independence in the three decades after 1990. In a Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation poll conducted in June 2020, 54% of respondents supported de jure independence for Taiwan, 23.4% preferred maintaining the status quo, 12.5% favored unification with China, and 10% did not hold any particular view on the matter. This represented the highest level of support for Taiwanese independence since the survey was first conducted in 1991. A later TPOF poll in 2022 showed similar results.
Tell me you have no idea how the UN works without explicitly saying so. A majority of countries not recognizing Taiwan doesn’t mean it’s “international law” that Taiwan isn’t independent.
I think you just told us that about yourself.
LMAO this is such a cope.
Proceeds to write a bunch of cope. 😂
. They know if they tried full-out war against the US or its allies (Taiwan), the US navy would cut off their international trade and turn their country upside down – it’s why they’re trying so hard (and failing) to seize full control of the South China Sea.
You losers can’t even prop up Ukraine against Russia, and think you can take on China. The sheer delusion here. Burgerland economy would collapse overnight. Go check where all your shit comes from sometime. 😂
It’s incredible how you have trouble grasping the situation and think China is going to “peacefully” absorb Taiwan when Taiwan is farther from China than ever in terms of national identity and international participation.
You’re like the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Latest polling shows that vast majority of people want to maintain the status quo, and very few people want independence, but do go on child esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963
I’ll keep this short since you already seem extremely unhinged and half the stuff you wrote is basically empty insults.
You losers can’t even prop up Ukraine against Russia, and think you can take on China.
Remind me how long that “10-day special operation” is taking again? Seriously, how can the “2nd best military in the world” falter so hard against their tiny neighbour with 1/4 of the population just because they got weapon donations from other countries? It shouldn’t be that hard to counter right, I mean Russian military technology is allegedly so advanced and totally not stuck in the 80s. I would understand if it were half-way across the globe or something, but they’re LITERALLY ON THEIR DOORSTEP. It’s also concerning that China has repeatedly failed Russia when it comes to Ukraine and has caved into international pressure quite a few times, maybe it’s because China also realizes that the war is completely embarrassing Russia?
The sheer delusion here. Burgerland economy would collapse overnight. Go check where all your shit comes from sometime. 😂
The US navy has a larger airforce than the entire Chinese airforce, and the US has a larger and more advanced air fleet than the next 5 countries (Russia, China, India, SK, Japan) combined, and invests 3x as much as China into the military (and that’s what, 13% of the US’ budget?). The US navy also has over 2x the displacement of the Chinese navy. Spending is DEFINITELY not a problem considering that.
Damn, an opinion piece news article. Guess that destroys the entire American military and truly shows that China numba one.
Latest polling shows that vast majority of people want to maintain the status quo, and very few people want independence, but do go on child esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963
I literally said that exact same thing in my original comment, it goes against your point lmao. The status quo is defacto independence and “Taiwan, not China”. Notice how unification is by far the least popular response in what you linked, and has decreased in popularity significantly over decades. And of course, gaining independence eventually has increased in popularity over multiple decades. Is this part of China’s grand plan, to make unification with them less popular over time?
Remind me how long that “10-day special operation” is taking again?
Yes, let me remind you that it’s now publicly known that Ukraine was about to make a peace deal within the first couple months. Then the west tanked that deal, and started pumping weapons into Ukraine.
Seriously, how can the “2nd best military in the world” falter so hard against their tiny neighbour with 1/4 of the population just because they got weapon donations from other countries? It shouldn’t be that hard to counter right, I mean Russian military technology is allegedly so advanced and totally not stuck in the 80s. I would understand if it were half-way across the globe or something, but they’re LITERALLY ON THEIR DOORSTEP. It’s also concerning that China has repeatedly failed Russia when it comes to Ukraine and has caved into international pressure quite a few times, maybe it’s because China also realizes that the war is completely embarrassing Russia?
LMAO, China can just blockade the province and the economy there would crash overnight.
The only real metric to determine whether Taiwan is part of China is to ask the people who live there. And guess what, this is what they say:
Yeah, I agree, especially after all the NED sponsored propagandists are kicked out. Meanwhile, even despite US having a massive presence in Taiwanese media, the only reason DPP got in power was using first past the post mechanic.
Latest polling shows that vast majority of people want to maintain the status quo:
Do you honestly think a military blockade is the way to get people on the side of your cause?
I don’t think that at all, and that’s why China hasn’t resorted to this option.
“After all the people I disagree with are got rid of” Do you honestly think that makes you the good guy? Removing political opponents is the methodology of authoritarians.
Entire books have been written explaining in great detail how media is used to manipulate public opinion, and here you are bleating about AuThoRiTarIanS. 🤡
You claim international law on one hand as if it means something and then threaten with the big stick with the other.
Not sure what the contradiction in your mind is of a country enforcing its laws within its borders. You’ll have to enlighten us on this fascinating political theory of yours.
Put simply, you’re an asshole.
Put simply, you’re a cheap propagandist without a shred of intellectual honesty.
I’m not American nor have any loyalty to the Western hegemony. I’m an anarchist living in a country with its own independence movement attempting to get out from the boot of colonialism.
Anarchists are just edgy liberals, thanks for confirming that once again in this thread.
When you’re finished your work for the day propagandising, I hope you go home and think on your morality. Think on who you are as a person. Is defending Chinese bullying, violence, and threat really the best thing you can be doing with your life?
Hope you’ll take your own advice, but we both know you won’t. Clearly defending US colonialism is how you choose to spend your life. Peak anarchism right there.
China’s puts about as much effort into developing their own shovel head manufacturing capability as we do fearmongering about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, which is why they’re rapidly closing the shovel head manufacturing gap.
Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. Yes, they are dumping massive resources into SMIC. Yes, they also want to maintain imperialism over Taiwan, and TSMC is a part of that. Some of it is fear-mongering sure, but China is consistently confrontational in the South China Sea and beyond. There’s a reason they enforce an abrasive naval presence there and continue to press against the Philippines.
they also want to maintain imperialism over Taiwan
Not to deny the realities of the tensions there, but liberals are relatively loose with term imperialism. There is a difference between an imperialist state like the US and an anti-imperialist — and until recently imperialized — state like China.
China is consistently confrontational in the South China Sea and beyond
You have an island governed by a democratically elected government, with a population that from what I remember mostly doesn’t want to be assimilated into the PRC. The PRC taking it by force would, in my eyes, be rather imperialistic.
democratically elected? arguable and only for the last few decades at that. it was run as a brutal single party dictatorship backed by amerikkka until fairly recently. And last time i checked the vast majority of people in Taiwan want to maintain the status quo which is that Taiwan is part of China.
That’s only true in an academic sense. When a layman uses the term “political”, they refer to discussion pertaining to things like how a formal government is run, comparisons between types of governance, government policy, etc.
While deciding what cookie to eat or what color your cat’s litterbox is might technically be political in an academic sense, you’re just going to annoy people if you try to tell them that those are political decisions. I have found that trying to force academic definitions into common use is confusing at best, annoying on average, and infuriating at worst.
An example of where a word’s academic definition has no place in common speech can be found in “information”. The informal definition of “information” typically is seen as referring to knowledge and the transfer of said knowledge. This definition allows you to gain information from a lack of something.
However, it is my understanding that the scientific definition of “information” does not allow for the aforementioned action, as “information” refers to the properties of physical matter. The result is that you cannot gain “information” from a lack of something. You might be able to come to conclusions based on a lack of “information”, but you cannot actually gain “information” from a lack of something because “information” is inherently linked to matter.
Now. All of that said, this meme is related to something said at an engineering school, so on the one hand, it isn’t entirely out-of-place to expect the academic definition to be used because it is an academic setting. Yet, on the other hand, it is an engineering school, not a political science school. As such, while OP should be aware that the academic definition of “politics” may come into play, it’s also reasonable to expect that their professors and peers would mainly be using the common definition of the term.
However again, in my experience, trying to force academic definitions into casual discussion is confusing at best, annoying on average, and infuriating at worst. Please stop trying to do it. Thanks.
(Also, imo, genocide is like Schrodinger’s Cat; it is both political and not political at the same time. Personally, I think it mainly depends on the depth of the discussion; but its “political” nature varies from person-to-person. Imo, saying that genocide is happening shouldn’t be considered “political”, but talking about why it is occuring is political.)
Edit: whoops, somehow my comment doubled, within the comment. The fuck happened there?
Edit 2: I swear I need to find a new phone keyboard, and I need to read over my comments before submitting. I’m finding a lot of stupid auto-correct errors, and it seems like they’re becoming more common.
Edit 3: the reason I got hung-up on it, and I should have mentioned this, is because I often see “everything is political” used to justify bringing heavier topics into places where it’s inappropriate (like chatrooms where people are trying to just hang out and have light hearted discussions).
Technically, yes, everything is political if you make it political. But you have to make it political first. Petting your cat isn’t inherently political unless you bring up the government policies and economical structures that allow you to own the cat in the first place, or compare your attitude towards the cat to a political stance, or something else of that ilk.
In the same way, everything is scientific if you study it scientifically, and everything is theological if you consider it from a theological perspective. It’s technically true, but that doesn’t make it useful. It says more about the way you think than the nature of reality, especially as politics are a social construct.
1000% this. I live in the bible belt and am a big burly bearded bastard so people “quiet part out loud” at me with supersonic speed (1). I’d almost make a mortgage payment if I had a buck for every time someone said some ridiculous shit then I got in trouble for “getting political” aka politely and calmly engaging with the statement just made directly to me.
I didn’t make it political. The person saying trans folk should “wear the right clothing” made it political. I believe the word you’re looking for is “uncomfortable,” and if you don’t want it to get uncomfortable maybe tell HIM not to get political. If he says it, I have a right to respond - and silencing my speech but not his is an explicit endorsement of his speech.
(1) It has literally happened in like 5 sentences or less between even me and a stranger multiple times. “Hey what’s up” “nothing much started a new job” “cool, I haven’t worked in a bit but I worked at target for a bit” “why? Target funds ANTIFA TERRORISTS”
That’s true to an extent. It’s more about avoiding arguments, though, and less about whether the view is orthodox.
For example, some views are so out there and unaligned that people will just think it’s a joke and not fault you unless you start seriously arguing for it, like if you say murder should be legal.
On the other hand, some orthodox views would still get restricted because they’re contentious. Like if you start talking about how you believe in equal rights, that’s something most people agree with (at least in principle,) and it shouldn’t be political. But it’s going to ruffle some feathers anyways (especially if you get any more specific than that,) so it’d be restricted.
So basically, it either has to be so out there that people won’t think you’re serious, or so commonplace that people won’t even consider that it could result in arguments.
would still get restricted because they’re contentious. Like if you start talking about how you believe in equal rights, that’s something most people agree with (at least in principle,) and it shouldn’t be political. But it’s going to ruffle some feathers anyways (especially if you get any more specific than that,) so it’d be restricted.
If this is the best example you can come up with, it is fairly unconvincing that any mainstream political will be restricted.
I don’t have a strong sense of what’s mainstream because I usually only engage with politics in a left-leaning online space that was popularized by a protest against a corporation. Can you think of anything mainstream that’s likely to get a pass? I’m 80% sure if you can, it’s going to be because someone will see it and not even consider that it could cause an argument because it’s such a given… I’ll drop that down to 50% if you’re trying to pick an example to prove me wrong.
I hate to say this but I’ve honestly just gotten used to the idea at this point. I’ve been watching the people around me howling in support of fascism since about 2015 now and the more egregious these politicians crimes become the louder these idiots seem to howl for them. It’s been going so long that it’s just part of the background noise of day to day life now, and I’m tired of caring anymore. It’s fucking depressing.
How can we convince people now is the time to act? What more information do we need? I think most people are clinging to the idea everything is business as usual. As long as they can keep the lights on they wouldn’t want to upset the stability they’ve managed to make for themselves.
As a Russian who’s been thinking about what could’ve been done about Putin’s many moves towards authoritarianism, I say this: I don’t know. I dint think anyone knows either.
indsight is 20/20, so good luck trying to convince people to act now, before the far and distant future is here; it’s probably part of our nature to not be that much concerned with the long-term, as it’s the short- to mid-term that keeps us alive, i.e. fed, sheltered, hopefully healthy etc.
At this point, it feels like history is indeed very cyclical, at least society is, and now anyone left of outright fascism seems to be in minority, with many others either failing or refusing to recognise what’s likely coming. I don’t think it’s new, either - I’m sure people of our ages had things to compare their situation to during the Nazis’ rise to power and subsequent events, just like we look back to their times and wonder how in the world could we possibly let that happen.
It’s probably best to vote and to protest and to be politically active and all that, before the right-wing or some other authoritarian group manages to manipulate its way into your government, local or higher, and start doing all it can to make you not even think of voting or protesting or being politically active. The caveat is you just don’t have any guarantees that any of that is going to work.
What’s even more important to remember is the fact that we cannot come up with some universal solution that’s going to always work the best way possible in every political and economical and social circumstance. This is what makes recording history and experience so important - it will allow us and those that will be after us to analyse the multitudes of factors and tendencies that lead to things and hopefully figure out reliable and effective and predictable mechanisms for society to function and prosper in mutual respect, egalitarianism, support, etc.
My last take is probably a little controversial: I think we shouldn’t ostracise people we see as fascist or right-wing or authoritarian, etc., but rather be welcoming and supporting, giving them respect, community and opportunity to speak and be listened to with kindness and understanding; many turn to violent and inhumane ideologies because, well, they don’t value themselves, feel threatened, humiliated, afraid, or something along these lines. It doesn’t have to be true, because it’s about how people feel, and we must work with how people feel and influence that on emotional level so they feel like they being in a group that’s based on being “anti-woke” or just “anti-” something - that’s a dead end; they should feel like they belong to groups that envision future and prosperity, where people know they can be trusted and can trust, where they can respect and be respected. You may not like it, but you have to understand that the human psyche can be very flexible and eventually turn a person you could easily turn into a human-loving ally into a bloodthirsty fascist just because they couldn’t find their place anywhere else, so instead they’re easily picked up by a group that manipulates confused and lost people into a sense of community and belonging.
Fascism has to be the unappealing option for them, and that requires a mind healthy from trauma and loneliness, the lack of that feeling like you’ve been played and robbed of something you own - like some great historical period the mouthpieces promise to get you back into if you yell at teenage girls for wearing bright-colored hair and rainbow pins.
I agree with your controversial take, however it’s important to note that a lot of this fascist rhetoric relies on misinformation which is spread far quicker and further than the truth. And the neofascism that has taken hold is very in-group oriented (i.e. the concepts that the in group is by definition morally virtuous and thus can do no real harm, whereas the out-group is the opposite) which is difficult to break down with logic and rhetoric. That’s not to say it can’t be done, but in terms of conversion (purely as a metric, i don’t mean to be oberly reductionist) it will always be one step forward three back. And if they people don’t approach a conversation in good faith it can be downright impossible to get them to even fathom a differing perspective. What I’m saying is that the new breed of fascists rely solely on dogma and groupthink, and have been trained to reject any rebuttal or outside perspective. They took what the old fascists did well and optimized it and trained people in it for the past 70+ years.
I will pay for premium when it means they will not sell my data and will allow me control over my algorithm to prevent it from playing to my vulerabilities. Since they won’t change, I won’t pay.
when it means they will not sell my data and will allow me control over my algorithm to prevent it from playing to my vulerabilities
The problem is that this will never happen. That boat has sailed - companies will never give up on their existing revenue streams. They may say that paying today will exempt you from the ads, but it’s only a matter of time before they ramp up the cost and start showing ads anyway. That’s how cable television started, and it’s how internet streaming will end as well. And as for the not selling data/controlling the algorithm, well you have no way of proving that they don’t do that so they’ll do it no matter what they say.
There’s no reason for google to do this whatsoever. They have their business model - any new revenue streams will 100% definitely not reduce the other ones at all. It’s just gonna be another giant dump into the pile of enshittification.
Google doesn’t sell your data, they’re one of the few that don’t. That doesn’t mean they aren’t misusing your data though. They’re more the dragon hoarder than the thief selling off stolen goods. They want all your data so they can learn everything about you. Selling your data to others makes it worth way less. It’s a difference in strategy. Google retains the data to enhance their products, Facebook sells your data because they have no products that would be improved by keeping it.
Sorry if I miscommunicated. No, they’re not selling your home address. But the idea that they aren’t monetizing your personal data aggressively is laughably wrong and heavily documented.
I don’t know who started this trend of “showing ads is the same thing as selling data” but it’s fucking irritating to see so many people confidently wrong about something they could figure out themselves if they thought about Google’s business model for 30 seconds.
Since we’re all dummies and you know the answers, please go ahead and explain how Google goes about selling heavily targeted ads to uniquely identifiable groups, but that they also are not “selling data”.
Are we being massively pedantic and saying that it’s not actual user data, but rather leveraging said data to sell ads to the anonymized targeted groups, who are actively tracked by Google around the internet so ads can be served up at opportune times in their browsing?
Because that dumb argument is like saying Oxford Dictionary doesn’t sell words, they sell definitions; or that McDonalds doesn’t sell beef, they sell hamburgers.
They sell ads, but data. If you can’t see the difference I can’t help you. It’s not “pedantic”, it’s being factual. Sorry you apparently think facts don’t matter.
Showing ads is not the same as selling data, but it’s also not really what google is doing. Google spies on you and uses that data to sell access to you to any company that wants to exploit you. They’ve also been known to give (not sell) data on you to law enforcement based solely on your location data or things you looked up.
I will never pay for premium. Yewtu.be and all the similar front end ad killers are always there when ublock Origin gets half a step behind in the never ending cat and mouse it seems to have with YT. Fuck tech companies. Fuck YouTube. Fuck Reddit. Fuck em all.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.