Food isn't expensive if you buy chicken/pork on sale
Corpo greed / cost cutting / layoffs is driven by ruthless consumer demand for cheaper products over all else. Rather than pointing to faceless organizations looking for a boogieman, people should look in a mirror.
Elections are won by voting
On some self reflection, #3 and #4 is pretty closely related. Something something no margin for small farmers I think. Ah well, everyone's a hypocrite - including me.
Liking cars is one thing, but we should not be designing our lives around cars. The more we cater for cars, the worse our living conditions get. The more we treat cars as the primary and required method of transport, the worse our society becomes.
And 4. Individual action alone is simply just ineffective at solving the problems. Focusing on individuals rather than systemic change is the same as doing nothing. If we want to change behaviour, we have to change incentives.
I'm saying "individual" action is the problem. When an "individual" buys bottled water, or buys some cheap shit from Temu which will break in 2 days, or throws cardboard in the trash instead of recycling, everything becomes just a little bit worse.
It's not an individual. Every time you see that word, you can safely multiply it by a couple hundred million and see the actual almost-daily effect of what an "individual" does. A billionaire flying one leg of a private flight 10 miles? Who fucking cares compared to the bigger picture?
Whenever I see conversations like this, I have to wonder, what is your goal? Are you trying to solve the problem? Or are you trying to find someone to blame?
Because if it's the latter, then go ahead blame individuals all you like. It's overly simplistic and ignores the fact that people's behaviour is shaped by the systems they live under. It's also completely and utterly useless at actually solving the problem. But by all means, you can waste your time as much as you like, just don't expect people who actually want to affect change to waste their time humouring such stupidity.
Not sure if you're actually trying to understand what I wrote, but I'm not trying to find someone to blame - I've already found them. I'm not trying to effect change - I'd become a politician or teacher if I wanted to do that. These are just observations.
And it's interesting that "people who actually want to affect change" wouldn't want to try to tackle the actual problems. I guess it's easier to point to single-target big bad entities rather than a more vague entity like....everyone. Also it is easier to pretend people don't have agency, isn't it?
I’m not trying to find someone to blame - I’ve already found them.
... Please consider being a serious person.
And it’s interesting that “people who actually want to affect change” wouldn’t want to try to tackle the actual problems.
Wagging your finger at individuals is never, ever going to solve the problem.
Identifying systemic changes, and advocating for them politically, will.
I guess it’s easier to point to single-target big bad entities rather than a more vague entity like…everyone.
Again. You are focusing on blame and pointing fingers. Nobody cares who you want to blame.
Also it is easier to pretend people don’t have agency, isn’t it?
Nowhere has I said that people don't have agency. I said that people's behaviour is shaped by the systems they live under, which is a trivially true observation.
So if we want to effect change on a scale large enough to actually make a difference, we will focus on systemic changes.
How dare the public not want to hear about us stripping the rights of gays, and trans people? ECHO CHAMBER! I JUST WANT CIVIL DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW BLACK PEOPLE ARE NOTHING BUT THUGS AND RAPISTS AND THEY SHOULD GO BACK TO AFRICA.
How about no dude? Go back to Truth Social and rant there. Nobody wants to hear about your eugenics, how a female comic artist hurts your browsing experience and you're too contrarian not to spew misogynist rhetoric.
Progressives and most real moderates know better now. It's all bad-faith arguments and dog whistles. The paradox of tolerance is real and people need to stop platforming insanity.
That's what you plan to do on the internet all day? Just use buzzwords without understanding what they actually mean lol? Or do you genuinely believe that isn't the root of most right wing estranged, convoluted, self-deceptive arguments? Because the Republicans being elected have been saying the quiet part out loud for almost 8 years now.
Gish gallop! Fallacy fallacy! Sealioning!!! And no, citing multiple sources is not gish gallop. I've been hit with that accusation in a personal chat recently too lol.
Ehm.. calm down, friend. You are reading quite a bunch into my post. It is exactly this stupid finger-pointing of 18-year old know-it-alls that ruins lemmy.
Using imfglip and linking to it instead of hosting the image somewhere (Lemmy? Imgbb?) definitely makes you one of the baddies.
Also there's several variations of this meme that you could have used that don't use a violent abusers image. Like a similar one with Geordi LaForge from Star Trek.
Do you want to inform us in some words of his missdeeds instead of using a word that has lost all its meaning by now? No offense but if i would hate everyone that was called a groomer by someone on the web i would literally hate every single person in the world because thats where we are with "groomer" right now.
Have you red that article of yours? He might be a creep but this is NOT grooming. Maybe stop using that word as it means something completely different.
"Preparing a person for a position requiring skilled behavior, especially by providing opportunity for practise and guidance in making the right decisions."
Now id like to see how knowing a person is the same as preparing the person, in this case, for a sexual relationship. The act of grooming minors entails to prepare them for sexual acts in order for the abuser to have a willing object for their sexual gratification.
What you are having a problem with, and i would even say rightfully so, is the power imbalance between these people. Power imbalance can have many sources, lika age gap, power or wealth. Not sure which is the biggest factor here. But again, calling it grooming simply is the worst way to adress the problem you actually want to talk about and it is hurting victims of actual grooming. Just like calling the GOP a bunch of groomers when you would need to adress the corruption and their obvious steps towards dismantling the democracy. It is helping the offenders by derailing the whole conversation without offering any actionable steps.
While there's definitely some of that going on, the people I usually see complaining about this kind of thing are not interested in the fair exchange of ideas. Rather, they're upset that one of their dumb opinions got made fun of in a public forum.
yeah, im this 🤏 close to unsubscribing from any news related communities. the comments are mostly repetitive circle-jerks and antagonistic in-fighting. it's really affecting my time on here.
With how unnecessary it is sometimes to be in the office with teleworking and losing my time commuting, that would be a way for employers to think twice before asking someone to come in, and give some kind of compensation to those who can't work from home.
I mean. Both of those things seem like pretty reasonable positions to discuss. They way you write that seems to imply that rent and work are simply facts of life, but they don't have to be. Or at the very least, they could look a lot different to how they do now.
Rent is an economic concept that doesn't have to exist. In fact it's not hard to make the economic argument that it should not exist. Rent-seeking is generally considered a bad thing, because it removes value from a system.
Work is harder to get away from. But there's no reason work has to look like how employment does today. And there's a productive discussion around how much work is reasonable, especially as automation continues to advance.
Personally I don't think that companies should be responsible for taking care of people... because that's the governments responsibility. We are rapidly approaching a situation where people will be automated out of work faster than we can invent new arbitrary things for them to do. UBI is inevitable it's just a question of when and how
You're not, boss. You're my childhood friend that saved me from a gang of rabid wombats and I would follow you forever using my unique skills to defeat your enemies in turn based combat.
The top part of the meme is actually a reason I like instances that don't defederate from other instances. It allows me to see what those I disagree with and/or just don't like might be saying/thinking at a certain period.
My favourite part of Lemmy is seeing enlightened centrists posting to Lemmy.ml thinking it’ll be sympathetic to any other ideology than socialism/communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism
it's going with the "us vs them" mentality mentioned in the post. and I see you with your self-upvote there, I really love kbin for that transparency
Yeah... why wouldn't you self upvote? At least reddit had that right. Does ANY commenter on a public forum NOT want their comment more visible lol? It's one of my biggest complaints about any Fediverse instance that actually allows ANY form of visible vote tallying.
I halfway was going to just drop it, but decided to come back and also explain it for any few that happened to trip across this time capsule of a comment years down the line, but see it on lemmy instead of kbin, and them getting confused about what I implied earlier
on some social media sites where you upvote yourself by default, it's all fine and dandy since that's the default and everyone already has their own - people looking over messages know it all beforehand and everything is upfront
on somewhere like kbin, where you have to go out of your way to do it, it can come off as manipulation to make a message appear to have a greater consensus than it would otherwise have. the next step up, and in definitely-ethically-dubious territory, is having multiple accounts to upvote yourself to boost your message
early upvotes/downvotes makes others that are quickly passing by a message feel more comfortable piling on one way or the other; group psychology is funky like that. it's also a way some bad actors social engineer the system to get what they want seen to be seen, while burying others. I'm not saying you're doing any of that beyond upvoting only yourself, but maybe this all explains a little better on the reasoning about its sketchiness on upvoting yourself on specific social media that don't give a self upvote by default. It's not a god-awful thing to do since a single vote is mostly innocuous, but it also isn't a good look when someone looks into it and spots it
I used to feel that way but man, after the 20th time in a row that someone either calling for nuance or unity with questionable individuals ended up being some sort of malefactor with an evil agenda has me completely burnt on thinking that way. You just have to accept that some people are irredeemable and not worth dealing with, and replace them with those who are actually out there for your best interests.
I think you pretty fundamentally misunderstand what people mean when they say "enlightened centrist". Because it's not actually demonising having an open mind. It's referring to people who adopt a smarter-than-thou attitude while insisting that listening to bigotry is of vital importance.
If the message is clearly coming from a mean spirited place you shouldn’t need to listen to that person.
Except centrists say we should. All the time. As long as bigotry is dressed up in "civil" language, centrists will say that it's fair game.
I am constantly told, by centrists, that my right to exist in society is open for debate. Whether or not I can get my healthcare, or if it is criminalised, is an open question. And that's not rare, I see it almost every day, from people who think of themselves as "center".
From what I’ve seen, bigotry often gets defined as literally any deviation from the exact list of opinions one must hold to be considered left wing.
No. That's just right-wing rubbish.
There are a tiny handful of opinions deemed bigoted. It's just that the right-wing is utterly obsessed with them, and wants to talk about them all the time.
People can hold conservative and right-wing opinions about taxation or spending or foreign policy without being called bigoted. Progressives would probably disagree vehemently with them. But it's not bigotry.
The people attacking “centrism” seem to think half the population is irredeemably evil and has nothing good to contribute to a conversation.
That is you strawmanning people, if that is what you think.
“Centrists” to me are people from a wide range of views who decide not to be at each other’s throats and actually talk things out.
Talk what out? Be specific. It matters.
Again, many topics are perfectly open for debate.
People's inclusion in society as equals, is not.
To me the people who are willing to be civil (with those who are also civil and genuine about their views) are the ones making real progress instead of essentially hoping for civil wars to break out
Civil tone does not a civil idea make, is all I'd add to that.
You’re free to choose tribalism more often if you prefer,
Oh bite me. I'm not "choosing tribalism". Direct your ire to the people slinging abuse at minorities, not at minorities who are tired of endlessly debating their own existence.
It can’t be easy to talk to people who on the surface appear to disagree with your very existence.
Not just on the surface. Don't downplay.
But the people actually talking it through are not the bad guys, they’re the ones getting shit done, changing minds instead of escalating and further entrenching people in their existing views.
Historically speaking, you are dead wrong. Societies have fallen to fascism precisely because of moderates and "centrists" making room for fascism to flourish, and impeding efforts to shut it down before it entrenches itself, because they were convinced that "civil conversation" was the only way forward.
You might feel superior to those of us actually doing the work, but you are standing in the way of actually getting things done. And you will be treated accordingly.
You talk of being reasonable but posit the most unreasonable position and claim it's as proof that others are unreasonable.
You're completely full of shit.
Meanwhile, please show me a truly centrist path to the battle for rights. I would love to hear what a person like you sees as a reasonable outcome that somehow pleases those who deserve something unalienable and those who wish to obliterate those who fight for something unalienable.
Your point is moronic. You guys think you're being reasonable and finding the middle when all that's happening is you're being pipelined into fascism with some extra steps.
Whenever someone posts this sort of vague "people aren't tolerating my ideas" post, nine-times-outta-ten, the ideas in question are just awful.
No, my idea is great, everyone else is wrong!
Like yours
What?
Biden's a good president
I like cars
Food isn't expensive if you buy chicken/pork on sale
Corpo greed / cost cutting / layoffs is driven by ruthless consumer demand for cheaper products over all else. Rather than pointing to faceless organizations looking for a boogieman, people should look in a mirror.
Elections are won by voting
On some self reflection, #3 and #4 is pretty closely related. Something something no margin for small farmers I think. Ah well, everyone's a hypocrite - including me.
I'm saying "individual" action is the problem. When an "individual" buys bottled water, or buys some cheap shit from Temu which will break in 2 days, or throws cardboard in the trash instead of recycling, everything becomes just a little bit worse.
It's not an individual. Every time you see that word, you can safely multiply it by a couple hundred million and see the actual almost-daily effect of what an "individual" does. A billionaire flying one leg of a private flight 10 miles? Who fucking cares compared to the bigger picture?
Whenever I see conversations like this, I have to wonder, what is your goal? Are you trying to solve the problem? Or are you trying to find someone to blame?
Because if it's the latter, then go ahead blame individuals all you like. It's overly simplistic and ignores the fact that people's behaviour is shaped by the systems they live under. It's also completely and utterly useless at actually solving the problem. But by all means, you can waste your time as much as you like, just don't expect people who actually want to affect change to waste their time humouring such stupidity.
Not sure if you're actually trying to understand what I wrote, but I'm not trying to find someone to blame - I've already found them. I'm not trying to effect change - I'd become a politician or teacher if I wanted to do that. These are just observations.
And it's interesting that "people who actually want to affect change" wouldn't want to try to tackle the actual problems. I guess it's easier to point to single-target big bad entities rather than a more vague entity like....everyone. Also it is easier to pretend people don't have agency, isn't it?
... Please consider being a serious person.
Wagging your finger at individuals is never, ever going to solve the problem.
Identifying systemic changes, and advocating for them politically, will.
Again. You are focusing on blame and pointing fingers. Nobody cares who you want to blame.
Nowhere has I said that people don't have agency. I said that people's behaviour is shaped by the systems they live under, which is a trivially true observation.
So if we want to effect change on a scale large enough to actually make a difference, we will focus on systemic changes.
You realize you two are agreeing with each other right lol?
All of these in the numbered list could add some serious dynamics to conversations on Lemmy. Yeah. You have identified our collective blind spots.
Sometimes the bad guys have skulls on their caps and it's really just that black and white simple.
Sometimes, but not usually
Thorsquint.jpg
How dare the public not want to hear about us stripping the rights of gays, and trans people? ECHO CHAMBER! I JUST WANT CIVIL DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW BLACK PEOPLE ARE NOTHING BUT THUGS AND RAPISTS AND THEY SHOULD GO BACK TO AFRICA.
How about no dude? Go back to Truth Social and rant there. Nobody wants to hear about your eugenics, how a female comic artist hurts your browsing experience and you're too contrarian not to spew misogynist rhetoric.
Progressives and most real moderates know better now. It's all bad-faith arguments and dog whistles. The paradox of tolerance is real and people need to stop platforming insanity.
Meanwhile you've got a c/Politics mod defending the Daily Wire as a "valid alternate viewpoint." Truly we've reached post-irony
I just want people to stop thinking their political views are meme-worthy. I came here to be entertained, not lectured.
That's what you plan to do on the internet all day? Just use buzzwords without understanding what they actually mean lol? Or do you genuinely believe that isn't the root of most right wing estranged, convoluted, self-deceptive arguments? Because the Republicans being elected have been saying the quiet part out loud for almost 8 years now.
Gish gallop! Fallacy fallacy! Sealioning!!! And no, citing multiple sources is not gish gallop. I've been hit with that accusation in a personal chat recently too lol.
Are you referring to yourself as op or did you forget what account you were logged into lol?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Yes.... yes it is. If they're shitty sources, it takes times to research to debunk each one.
Ehm.. calm down, friend. You are reading quite a bunch into my post. It is exactly this stupid finger-pointing of 18-year old know-it-alls that ruins lemmy.
Are we though? Because I think we know exactly what you meant to stir up lol.
Using imfglip and linking to it instead of hosting the image somewhere (Lemmy? Imgbb?) definitely makes you one of the baddies.
Also there's several variations of this meme that you could have used that don't use a violent abusers image. Like a similar one with Geordi LaForge from Star Trek.
drake is a violent abuser?
I think they've mixed up Drake, the rapper, and Drake Bell, the actor. Though the two look nothing alike, so maybe I've missed some news report.
Do you want to inform us in some words of his missdeeds instead of using a word that has lost all its meaning by now? No offense but if i would hate everyone that was called a groomer by someone on the web i would literally hate every single person in the world because thats where we are with "groomer" right now.
Have you red that article of yours? He might be a creep but this is NOT grooming. Maybe stop using that word as it means something completely different.
"Preparing a person for a position requiring skilled behavior, especially by providing opportunity for practise and guidance in making the right decisions." Now id like to see how knowing a person is the same as preparing the person, in this case, for a sexual relationship. The act of grooming minors entails to prepare them for sexual acts in order for the abuser to have a willing object for their sexual gratification.
What you are having a problem with, and i would even say rightfully so, is the power imbalance between these people. Power imbalance can have many sources, lika age gap, power or wealth. Not sure which is the biggest factor here. But again, calling it grooming simply is the worst way to adress the problem you actually want to talk about and it is hurting victims of actual grooming. Just like calling the GOP a bunch of groomers when you would need to adress the corruption and their obvious steps towards dismantling the democracy. It is helping the offenders by derailing the whole conversation without offering any actionable steps.
What's wrong with linking to imgflip ?
For me (using Jerboa), it automatically opens in an external browser instead of just opening the image in app.
Other apps might not have this issue though. Not sure why OP made the remark.
Sorry, I did not know that. Won`t happen again.
While there's definitely some of that going on, the people I usually see complaining about this kind of thing are not interested in the fair exchange of ideas. Rather, they're upset that one of their dumb opinions got made fun of in a public forum.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Beef Stroganoff.
True.
This isn't limited to lemmy users.
yeah, im this 🤏 close to unsubscribing from any news related communities. the comments are mostly repetitive circle-jerks and antagonistic in-fighting. it's really affecting my time on here.
Ngl same
So many people seem to genuinely think they shouldn't need to pay rent or work. Or that their employer should pay for their commute.
With how unnecessary it is sometimes to be in the office with teleworking and losing my time commuting, that would be a way for employers to think twice before asking someone to come in, and give some kind of compensation to those who can't work from home.
I mean. Both of those things seem like pretty reasonable positions to discuss. They way you write that seems to imply that rent and work are simply facts of life, but they don't have to be. Or at the very least, they could look a lot different to how they do now.
Rent is an economic concept that doesn't have to exist. In fact it's not hard to make the economic argument that it should not exist. Rent-seeking is generally considered a bad thing, because it removes value from a system.
Work is harder to get away from. But there's no reason work has to look like how employment does today. And there's a productive discussion around how much work is reasonable, especially as automation continues to advance.
Personally I don't think that companies should be responsible for taking care of people... because that's the governments responsibility. We are rapidly approaching a situation where people will be automated out of work faster than we can invent new arbitrary things for them to do. UBI is inevitable it's just a question of when and how
For people who don't want to click on the link:
no you dont understand!!! my opinion is correct, and anyone who dares to question it is automaticay one of the bad guys!!!!
You are mistaken. MY opinion is the truth, always.
Actually, you're both wrong.
it's simple, the guys I like are the good ones, and the ones I don't are bad.
I'm the main character, how could I ever be on the bad side?
You're not, boss. You're my childhood friend that saved me from a gang of rabid wombats and I would follow you forever using my unique skills to defeat your enemies in turn based combat.
The top part of the meme is actually a reason I like instances that don't defederate from other instances. It allows me to see what those I disagree with and/or just don't like might be saying/thinking at a certain period.
I too am an enlightened centrist, I must see both sides, for neither is annoying enough without the other
In order to see the balance in all things I must accept the holocaust deniers and the Holocaust believers.
My favourite part of Lemmy is seeing enlightened centrists posting to Lemmy.ml thinking it’ll be sympathetic to any other ideology than socialism/communism.
Oh dear, someone's mad that others rejected their fascism again
You are not sharing my opinion? You must be a FaSciSt!
Straw man
you either agree with me, or you're in the other tribe
Yes... that's how differing opinions work... they're different from each other lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism
it's going with the "us vs them" mentality mentioned in the post. and I see you with your self-upvote there, I really love kbin for that transparency
Yeah... why wouldn't you self upvote? At least reddit had that right. Does ANY commenter on a public forum NOT want their comment more visible lol? It's one of my biggest complaints about any Fediverse instance that actually allows ANY form of visible vote tallying.
I halfway was going to just drop it, but decided to come back and also explain it for any few that happened to trip across this time capsule of a comment years down the line, but see it on lemmy instead of kbin, and them getting confused about what I implied earlier
on some social media sites where you upvote yourself by default, it's all fine and dandy since that's the default and everyone already has their own - people looking over messages know it all beforehand and everything is upfront
on somewhere like kbin, where you have to go out of your way to do it, it can come off as manipulation to make a message appear to have a greater consensus than it would otherwise have. the next step up, and in definitely-ethically-dubious territory, is having multiple accounts to upvote yourself to boost your message
early upvotes/downvotes makes others that are quickly passing by a message feel more comfortable piling on one way or the other; group psychology is funky like that. it's also a way some bad actors social engineer the system to get what they want seen to be seen, while burying others. I'm not saying you're doing any of that beyond upvoting only yourself, but maybe this all explains a little better on the reasoning about its sketchiness on upvoting yourself on specific social media that don't give a self upvote by default. It's not a god-awful thing to do since a single vote is mostly innocuous, but it also isn't a good look when someone looks into it and spots it
I used to feel that way but man, after the 20th time in a row that someone either calling for nuance or unity with questionable individuals ended up being some sort of malefactor with an evil agenda has me completely burnt on thinking that way. You just have to accept that some people are irredeemable and not worth dealing with, and replace them with those who are actually out there for your best interests.
*doubt creeps into public opinion
https://giphy.com/gifs/starship-troopers-kill-em-all-johnny-rico-l3vRkwv2Yz6i8rDwY
lazy
is this reddit? please stop
Lemmy isn't reddit, but they're both the internet.
Oh look an Enlightened Centrist post. I thought you morons all stayed with Reddit.
"Oh look an Enlightened Centrist post. I thought you morons all stayed with Reddit."
Thank you for proving my point. And in such a colorful way!
I think you pretty fundamentally misunderstand what people mean when they say "enlightened centrist". Because it's not actually demonising having an open mind. It's referring to people who adopt a smarter-than-thou attitude while insisting that listening to bigotry is of vital importance.
Except centrists say we should. All the time. As long as bigotry is dressed up in "civil" language, centrists will say that it's fair game.
I am constantly told, by centrists, that my right to exist in society is open for debate. Whether or not I can get my healthcare, or if it is criminalised, is an open question. And that's not rare, I see it almost every day, from people who think of themselves as "center".
No. That's just right-wing rubbish.
There are a tiny handful of opinions deemed bigoted. It's just that the right-wing is utterly obsessed with them, and wants to talk about them all the time.
People can hold conservative and right-wing opinions about taxation or spending or foreign policy without being called bigoted. Progressives would probably disagree vehemently with them. But it's not bigotry.
That is you strawmanning people, if that is what you think.
Talk what out? Be specific. It matters.
Again, many topics are perfectly open for debate.
People's inclusion in society as equals, is not.
Civil tone does not a civil idea make, is all I'd add to that.
Oh bite me. I'm not "choosing tribalism". Direct your ire to the people slinging abuse at minorities, not at minorities who are tired of endlessly debating their own existence.
Not just on the surface. Don't downplay.
Historically speaking, you are dead wrong. Societies have fallen to fascism precisely because of moderates and "centrists" making room for fascism to flourish, and impeding efforts to shut it down before it entrenches itself, because they were convinced that "civil conversation" was the only way forward.
You might feel superior to those of us actually doing the work, but you are standing in the way of actually getting things done. And you will be treated accordingly.
That you think of this as the example of compromise really explains where you mind is.
Yes, did you?
You talk of being reasonable but posit the most unreasonable position and claim it's as proof that others are unreasonable.
You're completely full of shit.
Meanwhile, please show me a truly centrist path to the battle for rights. I would love to hear what a person like you sees as a reasonable outcome that somehow pleases those who deserve something unalienable and those who wish to obliterate those who fight for something unalienable.
Right so my take on you is made up but your strawman isn't?
Meanwhile, I'm waiting on your reasonable apprpach.
Your point is moronic. You guys think you're being reasonable and finding the middle when all that's happening is you're being pipelined into fascism with some extra steps.
Aaand blocked.