A friend of mine had six wisdom teeth. Does that mean he's especially wise or especially judgemental?

I believe that any country that wishes to maintain a society based on cooperation and mutual respect will have no choice but to accept the hardships that come with it and turn its back on the U.S. once and for all.

The leaders of this country are representatives of an authoritarian oligarchy and thus enemies of democracy, as evidenced by their treatment of their own people.

I see no signs whatsoever that this could change in the future, because, if we’re honest, the U.S. has long been an oligarchy—now it’s simply shedding the facade, as its ruling class has realized that nothing can stop it, a fact also evidenced by the fact that the criminal regime ruling the country is not held accountable even for the most blatant crimes.

The U.S. is now the world's largest oil producer. On top of that, its government really couldn't be any more corrupt.

Of course, the same question arises in other countries, but I think the answer is always the same: corrupt politicians.

Well, it’s certainly true that it should be pointed out that this is not a real image, but rather an exaggeration that also contains information that is unfounded—or even worse: false.

To me, however, it seems more like a caricature, a political satire, if you will: Here, too, exaggeration is used to express criticism and elicit an emotional response.

Nevertheless, you’re right, of course: It must be obvious that this is satire. Since this image isn’t a drawing that makes that fact clear, it’s right and important that you point it out—thank you very much for that!

And yes, you’re right on this point as well: Using image generation to criticize exploitation is indeed hypocritical.

Is something like this acceptable in the U.S. in any way? What kind of absurd attitude toward customers is that? What kind of restaurant owner would even think of something like that?

My reaction to a sign like that would be to never ever "dine" there ... not in a million years...

Yes, I agree.

Nevertheless, the statement still holds true: In the U.S., it’s common for service staff to rely on tips to make ends meet. This isn’t just exploitative—since dining out in the U.S. is already very expensive—but it also turns the whole idea behind tipping on its head: Instead of rewarding particularly competent service staff for their performance, they are penalized if their service isn’t outstanding—and even when the service is outstanding, but the customer doesn’t have enough money to acknowledge it with a tip.

This practice reflects the ideology of this country, which results in countless people in the richest country in the world living as if in a Third World country—without mandated health insurance, with virtually no labor protections, and with completely absurd excesses like private prisons.

Therefore: Yes, it is most likely AI, but the post nonetheless draws attention to a social injustice that many U.S. citizens probably do not even recognize as such, since they are so accustomed to it.

On LinkedIn, it’s likely to be particularly difficult to identify slop because most of what users post there is completely devoid of substance anyway:

Excited to announce our synergistic paradigm shift—an AI-powered initiative driving scalable impact through agile innovation, stakeholder alignment, and data-driven transformation.

This isn’t just a strategy. It’s a mindset. A movement. A fully integrated operating model for the future of work.

That kind of bullshit...

Yeah, sure, but blaming customers for the boundless greed of this store’s owners in such an arrogant way is truly insane.

Well, maybe it’s just another effect of the MAGA regime: The monsters are dropping all their restraint because the worst of them always get away with it.

I think the most important thing would be for people to finally realize what and who is primarily responsible, namely, unbridled, unregulated U.S.-style predatory capitalism, which has been completely out of control since the 1980s and has thus produced this new ruling class of excessively greedy, utterly unscrupulous multi-billionaires who have now become so powerful that they can give free rein to their antisocial behavior without any consequences.

These people are the enemies of humanity, and almost everywhere in the world their ploy is the same: mindless pseudo-nationalism that, with its false enemy stereotypes and wretched reactionary ideology, distracts attention from who the real culprits are. It is always these political factions that rail against foreigners and/or other minorities to hide who the real enemies are—the ones for whom they are actually making policy. The prime example of this is MAGA.

Unfortunately, these far-right extremist movements are by no means popular only among older people. In Germany, for example, the AfD—essentially a carbon copy of MAGA—has had a great deal of success among young people, especially young men. This is, of course, also linked to the fact that they are supported by the same billionaires who control the major U.S. social media platforms, such as Musk, Zuckerberg, Ellison, and their ilk.

It’s a mystery to me how anyone can fail to see that the idiotic hatred they spread serves, first and foremost, to mask the fact that these political movements exclusively pursue policies that benefit the super-rich. Nevertheless, these movements—which are often characterized by fascist and authoritarian tendencies—are, unfortunately, extremely successful. As long as they remain so, I have little hope that anything will change.

I’m not so sure whether the super-rich and powerful were really that different in the past. I just think that, at least in the West, they were much more tightly regulated back in the 1980s and even the 90s: It doesn’t seem like a coincidence to me that the rollback of government regulation coincides with the steady growth in the wealth of the richest one percent.

So I think these people have always been degenerate and antisocial; it’s just that they—or rather, those who profit from their wealth—have managed to infiltrate the political system to such an extent that nothing can stand in their way today.

To me, the best example of this development is, again, the U.S.: I find it inconceivable that a government as blatantly criminal as the current one would have been possible even in the 1990s. I mean, it’s very obvious that this is nothing but organized crime. The Epstein case, for example, leaves no doubt in my mind—and this is just one absurd scandal among many that, even twenty years ago, would have forced the government to resign, even in the U.S. Compared to these people, Nixon looks like an innocent schoolboy.

I think this is possible only in a failed state—and the reason for its failure lies quite obviously in the actions of the richest one percent, because they have the greatest stake in it and now even openly advocate this goal, for example, with pseudo-intellectual concepts like "Dark Enlightenment," which forms the "theoretical" basis of their politics —the goal is the abolition of democracy and a return to, or rather a pseudo-modernized interpretation of, the class-based society of the Dark Ages.

So in short: I think there can be no doubt that the billionaires are completely degenerate, but I believe their kind has always existed in this way. Today, however, they have so much power that they believe they can get away with anything—which unfortunately is indeed the case—and that is why they no longer even bother to keep up appearances.

Do they seriously believe that it would still work to try to portray entirely justified criticism of a state’s inhumane actions as anti-Semitism?

Anyone who still believes that—or at least claims to—cannot be a decent person, but is an open supporter of war crimes and genocide.

It is simply impossible not to see through this cheap, inherently corrupt ploy.

The fact that the Israel lobby and its billionaire backers are still trying this only makes it even clearer how morally depraved they are, for this manipulation of completely unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism even greatly fuels actual anti-Semitism itself—simply by equating Judaism with Zionism and the State of Israel, which is absolutely absurd. These inhumane monsters have even devised their own, completely absurd concept to silence criticism of Israel’s crimes from Jewish people—namely, the deranged construct of the so-called "self-hating Jew."

The exploitation of religion to justify the most horrific atrocities really could not be any more obvious. Therefore, anyone who still attempts to suppress criticism of Israel’s actions with false claims of anti-semitism can only be a monster themselves, since they are undoubtedly supporting genocide—such people should be denounced wherever they are encountered and socially ostracized, for they are inhuman beings devoid of any morality.

Well, it’s a fine line: The highlighted passage—"Being alive is as special an occasion as it gets"—could, in principle or at least on its own, also be interpreted to mean that one should always live in the moment and not worry at all about tomorrow or one’s fellow human beings.

This would be a very selfish attitude that considers only one’s own well-being and derives something like a right to be inconsiderate from personal happiness.

In this particular case, that might sound a bit exaggerated, but preserving old things can also benefit future generations by ensuring that records of their predecessors are preserved. How far this should go is, of course, also a matter of balance, especially since there is certainly a responsibility to use resources sparingly and not constantly acquire new things when a need could just as easily be met with what's already there.

So in short: The only point I’m trying to make is that, in my view, it’s important not to forget others—even those who haven’t even been born yet—in the pursuit of personal happiness.

Even though it’s certainly good to treat yourself and get the most out of life, these kinds of catchphrases are dangerous. Unrestrained hedonism is selfish and short-sighted; it is what has brought humanity to the situation it finds itself in today—on the brink of the abyss.

If we continue as we have been, we will destroy the very foundations of our existence—and, with them, ourselves.

"After me, the deluge" is not an attitude worth aspiring to.

Schlumbergera :)

Die wissenschaftliche Namensgebung ist echt immer wieder ein Highlight, besonders, wenn Arten nach Personen benannt werden, wie in diesem Fall offenbar nach dem Kakteensammler und -züchter Frédéric Schlumberger (1823–1893) - der "scheinlateinische" Touch ist einfach herrlich.

Eine Community für amüsante wissenschaftliche Gattungsnamen wäre doch vielleicht eine Überlegung wert. Bin recht sicher, dass es ziemlich viele geben dürfte, zumal sich die Wissenschaftler damit offenbar gern den ein oder anderen Spaß erlauben.

I just can't decide who's the most incompetent in this ridiculous clown show ....the crazy conspiracy theorist, the wrestling promoter, the washed-up alcoholic podcaster, the equally washed-up TV host, the MMA fighter, or maybe even the orange pedo himself .... they really don’t make it easy to decide....

However, they are clearly quite skilled at protecting pedophiles.

Experts undoubtedly agree on many points. The fact that they have differing opinions—and indeed should have them—is part of their craft, something on which they are in complete agreement, regardless of the field in question.

Here's an example: A craftsman knows what a nail is, but how, when, and whether it should be hammered in is a matter of judgment.

Edit: To put it more clearly: Someone who doesn't know what a nail is has no say in whether it's a good decision to use one.

That’s not to say that the opinions of laypeople don’t matter, since they may very well be affected by the issue. My point is simply that nothing is less productive than someone trying to tell a craftsman how to do his job without having even the slightest clue about the subject.

In this analogy, imagine a client who hires craftsmen and stands behind them the whole time, offering his uninformed opinions on everything they do—that only shows a lack of respect for the work of experts; it’s absolutely counterproductive.

It would make much more sense to clearly state what you want and simply let people do their jobs.

My fault: I had assumed that the people at Lemmy were capable of thinking abstractly.

I've added an edit that might make it clearer.

That's true, but only for ordinary people like us...