Does the reddit style format inherently make for a toxic environment? Or is it a culture of toxicity from the influx of reditors? For lack of a beter example, on stackoverflow, when someone down votes you, it comes with a comment saying how to improve. On mastodon, people can’t downvote you. These platforms are a joy to use,...
I think having some form of "I agree with this" or similar helps to make you feel engaged with the content (for better or worse).
I think perhaps the actual person responsible for the post or comment shouldn't be able to see the results, though, otherwise it just becomes another ego building thing, and you see people strategising explicitly to build karma like on reddit. instead, the author should see a rating, like "slight approval" "mixed feelings" "strong dissent", etc.
I consider myself a leftist. I wanted some insight on my labor union’s internal disagreement. So, I thought asklemmygrad might be a good spot (bad idea)....
This is just a thought I had that I wanted to bounce off people who know more about ActivityPub/the fediverse— would it be feasible (and would it make sense) to build an open-source, ActivityPub-compatible dating app as an alternative to Tinder/Bumble/etc.? And if so, what could that look like? Obviously the small userbase...
if don't know why it would be more specifically honest than other apps. that's really only defined by the user base, and their behaviour is likely to be shaped by what gets results. which, for better or, more likely, worse, seems to be that type of fake profile shit.
with luck there's be fewer bots, though. I don't think I got more than one single match with a real person while I was on tinder (I'm in nz, though, so pulsation density is definitely a factor there)
Not that I'm particularly against that - quite the opposite, in fact. But I'm wondering if anyone sees, or had seen a path to social and climate recovery/progress that could occur without first eradicating the class of people who most enjoy the present status quo.
Not that this is likely to change many minds, if that were even what I was hoping to do, but the problem with most of the 'non-murder' solutions people are proposing is this:
These people control, or have enormous influence over, the institutions that are able to implement the proposed measures. Some opposition exists, but ultimately money speaks louder, and these people have enough of it to buy a majority opposition to anyone proposing the changes which might help the majority at expense of the few, them.
The only real solution to the post my social inequalities that I can see is to have these monied individuals actively work to improve it, or at least step out of the way. That's going to take some pretty serious reprioritisation on their parts, and that in turn requires some extraordinary motivation. "Do this or die" might just do the trick is we can show we're capable of it, in both the physical and psychological sense. By contrast, "do this or else" probably isn't really going to cut it, especially since beyond the non-specificity of the threat, any ability to actually enforce sanctions on them is demonstrably low. It might just be possible to kill one, or a number of billionaires, but how are you actually going to lower their quality of life?
That's the line of reasoning that motivated this post, anyway. I was just curious if anyone could offer a plausible alternative.
The problem with a nuclear bomb is the collateral damage, and the lasting effects. If either side had a way to specifically and exclusively eliminate enemy soldiers, I'm sure they would take it. Hell, Russia would certainly have used their nukes if it weren't for the mutually assured destruction threat.
By contrast, specifically eliminating billionaires is much more like targeted elimination. Am equivalent to nuking would be to kill everyone over a specific wealth threshold, and everyone at every company they own.
I just don't get some people's mindset. Thousands - millions - of people die every year from causes that are either preventable through the application of money, or else can be directly laid at the feet of just these few individuals, but ohhh no, we can't let THEM be killed, that's an intolerable moral atrocity!
The number of people who are okay with people continuing to die of preventable causes, just as long as it doesn't require murdering a few individuals, is, well, not disturbing, but kinda depressing
When advancements that make people's lives easier are opposed because they're taking people's jobs, you know society is fucked.
Of course the robots are taking our jobs! That's the whole goddamn point! Let robots do the work so we don't need to sacrifice our time, our youth, or sanity and our health slaving away unnecessarily!
I would counter that if someone is standing in the way of social advancement, and you kill that person, you have directly improved society simply by that act.
You've already granted that the removal of billionaires is necessary for society to improve. If I were to go out right this instant, and remove them from existence (yes, just to be explicit, I am murdering them), would I not then have improved society?
Or, to put it in more general terms, is the act of removing obstacles to forward progress not a step forward itself?
If a better future requires fewer billionaires, and there is no way to reduce that number except their untimely deaths, how can the path to a better future not also require their deliberate removal?
Does the reddit style format breed toxicity?
Does the reddit style format inherently make for a toxic environment? Or is it a culture of toxicity from the influx of reditors? For lack of a beter example, on stackoverflow, when someone down votes you, it comes with a comment saying how to improve. On mastodon, people can’t downvote you. These platforms are a joy to use,...
Larry Nassar, the ex-USA Gymnastics doctor who sexually abused girls for decades, was stabbed 10 times in prison | CNN (cnn.it)
Have you considered... Pol Pot good? (sh.itjust.works)
I consider myself a leftist. I wanted some insight on my labor union’s internal disagreement. So, I thought asklemmygrad might be a good spot (bad idea)....
Fediverse dating app?
This is just a thought I had that I wanted to bounce off people who know more about ActivityPub/the fediverse— would it be feasible (and would it make sense) to build an open-source, ActivityPub-compatible dating app as an alternative to Tinder/Bumble/etc.? And if so, what could that look like? Obviously the small userbase...
The FDA is being asked to look into Logan Paul's energy drink, which has the caffeine of 6 Coke cans (apnews.com)
Is there any more ethical solution to our current circumstances than "murder all billionaires"?
Not that I'm particularly against that - quite the opposite, in fact. But I'm wondering if anyone sees, or had seen a path to social and climate recovery/progress that could occur without first eradicating the class of people who most enjoy the present status quo.