When Bloomberg reported that Spotify would be upping the cost of its premium subscription from $9.99 to $10.99, and including 15 hours of audiobooks per month in the U.S., the change sounded like a win for songwriters and publishers. Higher subscription prices typically equate to a bump in U.S. mechanical royalties — but not...
weekly PSA that spotify is a dumb company who makes no money because they're stupid.
To put it bluntly, between the artists, and the musicians, there is the publisher (the traditional music company) the money pretty much only goes to the publisher, because spotify doesn't want to make money, nor do they want artists to make money. And the artists put their shit on spotify because people believe that spending 15 dollars a month on a service that doesnt pay artists, apparently pays artists.
they don't make money because they're a tech company, they pull in VC funding, and then lose money year after year, they don't need to make any money because the model is to get everyone on your platform, and then start making money. (which apparently spotify hasn't figured out yet)
you know what else streams your music? The fucking internet, that shits free! Literally just posting your shit on a torrent will give you tons of traction to work with. Especially if you already have a pretty significant listener base. Plus you also get the benefit of people like me who are significantly more inclined to buy physical releases of media.
Regardless, streaming is a good way of getting people to hear your shit, if you really want to use a streaming service, don't go through a publisher, or at the very least, a mainstream publisher. They tend to fuck you over.
likewise, voting for a third party, also equally i would argue, supports a genocide. Due to the fact that the US is almost explicitly two party, the third party is really just the 12 people in a city who think they're better than whatever the fuck else exists, even though ultimately about 14 people will vote for said party, and one of those is someone who doesn't know any of the candidates.
Politics is hell, life is hell, the world is hell, i consider this to be a form of astroturfing to be completely honest. Nothing you do is going to make a significant difference, you need to be conscious of that, unless we have a ranked choice voting system with like 5 candidates, where the win is by plurality and not the fucking majority percent, then it literally does not matter who you vote for. (when it comes down to this kind of proxy war bullshit that seems to inflame people so aggressively, on a macro scale, it's different, i'm just making a point)
Just for the record, so you don't think im some sort of morally superior fuckhead twat, i'm not voting this cycle. I'm worse than anybody voting. Literally anything you do is going to be better than me. At the very least, nobody can say i support genocide, because i am ambivalent to it. This is the road you are toeing close to my friend.
i'm saying that it makes no quantifiable difference, in the same way that me not voting, literally does nothing. The fact that you are also basically not voting (third party candidates pull basically nothing most of the time)
As a result, the likely people to go into power, are well... The two candidates who "support genocide" This is just how two party systems tend to work. You need like 5 different candidates with plurality voting for it to really matter. Once you start having that level of candidacy the numbers become significantly more spread out due to the fact that candidates have more varied policies. Moving it from majority vote win, to plurality vote win. I.E. Significantly more attainable, stable, and a lot more applicable to an entire countries governmental policies.
Maybe i'm fucking wrong, and maybe this third party individual is fucking incredible, once in a lifetime political handling abilities and is going to bump straight through all the bullshit and right into the presidency. I'm not willing to bet on it though. Currently the political system is so aggressively polarized, that we are "voting between a fascist, and someone who isn't that fascist" so if we want to "not be fascist" our best option here is going to be voting for the party who is "not fascist" because you can be sure as hell that conservatives aren't voting third party. Maybe they are, but not in any significant numbers, likewise can be said for the democratic party.
I simply do not see a situation where we come out of this without either trump, or biden in power. Unless i start hearing shit like, tomorrow, about this supposed third party. I simply don't think it's feasible for any other result. I can't imagine republicans are voting in any significant number against trump, most people who would are probably swing voters, so democrat this time around. Those who are voting for trump are going to be a significant portion of the base, probably at least 30% of the votes of that party. The democrats have the same issue. Most people are going to prefer voting for biden because incumbency and shit hasn't fucking exploded completely yet. I mean sure some people involved in the israel palestine stuff are probably voting third party, but i can't imagine they're a significant part of the populous. If they were we wouldn't be in this position that we are now.
At best, what voting for third party this time does is say "i didnt vote for joe biden, or trump" which like, you do you. But uh, good luck have fun with that one.
as for video editing, i've been using flowblade recently, it's been pretty good for putting together more basic edits.
You should install it using flatpak and only update when you have no more active projects (for the moment it seems updates partially break older saves)
pcmanfm has been pretty solid, i really recommend learning CLI file management though, it's universal and super convenient for the basic things.
Shell sold millions of carbon credits for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that never happened, allowing the company to turn a profit on its fledgling carbon capture and storage project, according to a new report by Greenpeace Canada....
one of my favorite fun facts, is that apparently a non insignificant number of "carbon credits" come from unsealed oil wells being sealed up. Which sounds good and all.
Until you realize that leaving oil wells unsealed is literally illegal and not to regulation standards what so ever. So you are literally paying for carbon credits, that remove carbon, that never should have been in the environment to begin with.
in the linux community it's really common to have applications like MPD, music player daemon, or MPC, music player client, and ncmpc, ncurses music player client, and ncmpcpp the aforementioned one with ++ tacked onto the end.
Cmus, which from what i can recall is literally "c music player"
Russia on Monday threatened to strike British military facilities and said it would hold drills simulating the use of battlefield nuclear weapons amid sharply rising tensions over comments by senior Western officials about possibly deeper involvement in the war in Ukraine....
they've already exhausted the stupid. There is only cowardly left. Russia bombing the UK, and inadvertently, technically the EU would almost certainly result in US retaliation, let alone the nuclear submarines that britain has. And probably the rest of the EU.
I think it's probably because we've shifted away from shipping software as a product, and onto software as a service. I.E. in the 90s if win 95 irreversibly corrupted, that would be devastating to sales.
But today with windows 11? Just roll it out in one of the twenty three testing branches you have and see what happens, and if shit does break. Just work around it. It'll be fine. Even if something does happen, you can most of the time, fix it and roll out a new update.
And i also think it's moved to be more team centric, rather than department centric. A lot of the theory is probably more senior team led type responsibility. While everyone writing the code can chip in and add some as well. Developers knowing how to write secure code helps, so they should theoretically also be capable of QA themselves to a degree.
Also there's a lot more money in shipping shit out the door, than there is in shipping a functional product, unfortunately.
floating WMs are intuitive, but the problem is that they're an incredibly mediocre solution, and the way that problems are often solved around one, is just entirely asinine. Let's build ten different ways to do the same thing, now we have 10x the code to build and maintain, and it's 10x more confusing to the end user who probably won't know about half of them, because 90% of our documentation is redundant!
Tiling WMs have significantly less issues with this, because they often have a very strict set of management rules, and only those. Nothing more.
because the entire field of philosophy is based on questioning existing systems, and existing beliefs, this is why things like nihilism and anti natalism exist.
The only way to keep learning is to keep asking questions. The more questions you ask, the more deeply you can delve. Simple as.
teaching people how to think is a good thing, my complaint there was that i shouldn't need to write a book on politics, to then be required to explain to someone why one side bad and other side good, because i wrote an entire fucking book about it, and you should be able to gather what my opinion is from that, and then form your own as well.
If my entire written text doesn't make it clear what i've laid out, you probably shouldn't be reading im just going to be honest.
It’s a result of people needing to win/be correct tbh.
yeah, i hate debate culture for that reason lol.
No one discusses nuance anymore because some anonymous asshole comes in and ruins the entire conversation with shit like your example.
homie we are all anonymous, unless you actively doxx urself, in which case, go off? I guess? I don't see how i'm ruining the entire conversation though. The reply i posted is a response to the question posted, if you don't want silly responses (which this isn't) you should post silly questions. Ultimately i'm just trying to understand where other people are coming from, while stating where i'm coming from.
Like. They legit had to reiterate to you all woman believe every single man would take and kill them… yeah no shit that’s what they are thinking.
Yes, the problem here is that i already understand that this is why they believe that. I want to know WHY they believe it. I'm trying to understand what's going on here, you don't just develop such an aggressive aversion for a single concept from "shit happens, be careful" This is almost definitely something else more complicated than initially lead on. As per usual.
yeah no shit that’s what they are thinking. Let’s discuss it not have a sense of morale high ground that every other opinion denouncing that is wrong.
yeah, this is what im doing? Am i not? Is this not how you discuss things? I was pretty sure discussing things was an active two way participation between multiple parties, at least 2. but could be more. In order to shure up the understood collective knowledge between multiple people. I'm not denouncing opinions, just frustrated and trying to figure things out, i can be brazen at times, that's just how i am.
You can see how i would be frustrated and confused when someone says something that makes little logical sense (though clearly has some form of emotional bias) to which i'm curious as to why. Whom then responds by telling me that "no actually i'm just wrong" even though there is clearly something deeper here that we aren't currently discussing, because the topic at hand, is whether you want to be mauled by a bear or raped and killed by a man, due to the devolution of the thought experiment at hand right?
Maybe i'm just too autistic for this shit. But like, i want to talk about the thing. Not talk about how "yes but bear wont rape and kill me" I want to talk about the fact that people would rather be murdered by a bear, than potentially be near someone who could be violent. But currently the vast majority of this thread is just flame warring between people who don't understand each other. Or people just being dumb, as per the internet usually is. This is unfortunately, doing nothing productive. I want to do something productive, as per the saying, you can only get help, if you want to be helped, i suppose. I only say this because this is a collective solution, everyone needs to agree on this for it to stop. And i understand that it's a good thought experiment, the problem here is that continually reiterating the thought experiment to someone who doesn't understand what the fuck is happening, or why there is a thought experiment at all, does literally nothing to inform them of what is going on. It's the same thing that happens in political extremist groups, and cults. Conformity breeds subservience. We don't need subservience here, because the people ACTUALLY harming people, DO NOT CARE. Unfortunately, just because someone nods their head while listening to you, doesn't mean they actually pay attention to what you're saying.
Ok that's enough of my frustrated rant here. I just wish people would be nicer to others, and actually try to improve peoples lives. I mean i even prefaced my previous statement to clearly state that i have no clear understanding of this, and am merely trying to figure it out. And it still got pretty significantly downvoted. As per reddit communal behaviorisms i suppose i shouldn't be surprised. It's pretty typical, But i do appreciate your comment nonetheless.
The statistics of how likely any individual man is to commit sexual assault or violence against a woman is irrelevant because the discussion is about trauma, not objective danger. That’s the part people don’t seem to understand.
yeah, no i understand that part, however, when someone is confused and doesn't seem to understand this. For some reason, there are about 5 comments, reiterating the exact statement in a slightly different way, that confused them previously. Instead of just saying "yeah, i know, that's the point, it's fucking illogical, it's supposed to be lol" or something that would make it even remotely apparent to them that it's supposed to be that way.
People think we’re saying “men are more dangerous than a bear” when what we’re saying is “I’ve grown to fear men more intensely than even a bear due to my traumatic experiences as well as the traumatic experiences of those I know.”
so then just say that? Like i get that thought experiments and metaphor is fun but like, we're talking about rape. Not about funny alliteration.
It’s just an attempt to show men why we need the boundaries we do by putting into perspective how intense that trauma is, but instead of being met with understanding it’s been met with yet more accusations that it’s just proof women are irrational and hate men.
it's not a very good one though. That's the problem, the original intent with that statement was that it was supposed to drum up social media and get people talking, which, to the authors credit, it fucking did. The problem is, is that it's not explaining anything, it's the hook to the story, but then the story stops right after the hook, leaving you nothing but confusion and a good premise (hopefully)
Pulling out another statistic to say “hey, um, actually, individual men aren’t statistically likely to be violent toward you” is useless for helping a trauma victim overcome that trauma. Especially if it becomes a repeated trauma, at which point your brain rejects any amount of healing you’ve done and resists any attempts at healing again, because it feels it’s been proven right.
yeah, i would expect when someone pulls up with stats, and is obviously confused, that people would go "hey uh, you're wrong, and misunderstood the premise, here is why, and here is what it's for" but instead people seem to love saying "you're the reason we're like this" or something similar, which fun fact, doesn't help at all
and since we're speaking of trauma, the one thing the generally tends to overcome trauma effectively is therapy. Not yelling at people online about how they're dumb because they didn't pick up on a vague metaphor that you mentioned, and then proceeded to repeat, like this is some kind of cult classic joke that everyone in THIS specific group should already understand.
The behavior of a random bear is a lot easier to predict than the behavior of a random man.
i don't believe this honestly, unless you have a stat to point me to or something. I genuinely don't believe we have more information about bear behavior, than we do human behavior to be able to come to this to any degree of formal conclusion. Humans are also not that complicated, the main difference is that we often work together. Which i feel like would pretty clearly overstate that.
Most men (of course not all) aren’t physically afraid of most women, and so a woman has a better chance of scaring off a bear than a man. Whenever I’m hiking in bear country, I make enough noise to advertise my presence to any bears nearby. This is generally enough to scare them off, but wouldn’t work on any man, regardless of whether or not he wanted to hurt me.
even then i feel like a significant number of men would just, leave you alone, if you asked. And regardless of that, most men would not require this at all, because they would not pose a physical threat. Since again we're taking a random person from society.
Statistically speaking, bears rape and/or kill women way less often than men do. A bear isn’t going to block you from exiting a room, or slip something in your drink, or get angry if you refuse to give him your number, or follow you down the street catcalling you and laughing at you.
how many bears have you been on dates with? How many times have you seen a bear in the groccery store? How many times have you interacted with one online? etc.... etc... etc... This is literally just an exposure bias. Basic statistical fact. This is like saying that minority groups commit significantly less violent crime than the majority group, which is technically true, but when adjusted to reflect the difference in population, it might reverse, or even meet right where you would expect it to. This is just a bad stats question.
And we can’t quantify how dangerous any given unknown man is - we usually don’t know a man intends harm until he tries something. So we adopt a very earned mindset of self-preservation, because even if we do everything “right” there’s a prevailing attitude that we did something wrong.
yeah, every person that walks past me, every person i interact with, particularly those close to me, could kill me at literally any time. The only thing that makes me comfortable enough to go outside without feeling like im going to be smited by god for merely existing, is the basic fact that stats say it's incredibly unlikely.
But this also ignores that this example does not include the primary groups of problematic people. Most people would be more concerned about the fact that they're in the woods, and lost, and would like to get out, without dying. If you're hypothetically walking into the woods with someone, then obviously i feel like that's a non issue. If you come across a random person in the woods, you're probably not lost. If you're lost in the woods, and you come across someone who isn't lost, they're probably doing something, or regularly out there. Hunting, fishing, maybe they live out there, who knows. Chances are they're probably a decent person. Unless you come across someone who looks like they just buried a body i guess.
If I’m considering situations I have a better chance of surviving unharmed, both statistics and personal experience tell me I’ve got a better chance with the bear, because I can predict the behavior of a bear and have a good chance of scaring it off, but I can’t predict the behavior of or scare off a random man.
i disagree with the statistics part, unless we're using a specific type of statistics. Statistics should really be on your side here. There is almost no possibility that something negative happens, according to it. Personal experience obviously tells you something different, and that's another valid concern, though it's important to remember that personal experience also often magnifies certain issues like anxiety, and agoraphobia for instance. So it's something you have to manage. But that's a different topic and i didn't come here to tell you how to feel lol.
As for the stats example, lets say that you and i, randomly end up lost in the woods. We're teleported there for who knows what fucking reason. Like i'm aro/ace and a fucking autist. I spend the vast majority of my time messing with linux or learning about something that interests me. I have literally no reason to harm anybody. I might bore the ever living shit out of you with shit you don't care about but thats it. Hell if you were like "i'm just gonna go, don't follow me" i wouldn't. I would be a little annoyed because that might be a little rude, but it's not like i have any right to care lol. I'd just go about my shit.
I agree that the way it’s been handled thus far has been awful, straight from the get go. It wasn’t a good way to put it and was obviously gonna rile people up, but I still think the popularity it’s gotten on social media can be used as a good tool to help people understand this better.
oh for sure, the attention is the big part of it. But the attention doesn't help if it doesn't teach anyone anything, or educate them about anything. Hell it might even negatively harm it.
but it’s also worth noting that the one thing you’re supposed to do in nearly every traumatic situation, and will be recommended by any therapist you see, is to take healthy measures to prevent it from happening again.
ok so i take it this is probably a preventative measure and not a coping mechanism to help deal with it. That being said, i'm just clarifying that point to make sure we're on the same page here, because if people are suggesting to take preventative measures as a coping mechanism, i think that's kind of shit advice to be honest. Not that it isn't helpful, i just don't think that's inherently healthy, because paranoia is a disorder on it's own.
misandrists are a problem for us too, because they don’t treat us like real women, just punching bags to treat in the most misogynistic way possible, because they only see you as a now vulnerable man to get revenge on.)
god i love society. Literally nothing stops being ass for more than a few seconds because fuck you i guess :) That's the way life goes i suppose, unfortunately.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting men are inherently more violent than women and need to be avoided more often. I just think the messages society sends toward men and women as they grow up are vastly different which is what leads to violence being more prevalent in men. It’s a complex issue that requires huge societal changes to fix, but for now it’s just the truth that women need to look out for their own safety in the presence of men until these issues are solved to a reasonable degree.
yeah pretty much sums it up.
But to reiterate, yeah, the meme is clearly inflammatory, I just think anything than can be used as a learning experience should be.
yeah, hard agree here. You just have to be careful about how you teach things, because it's easy to teach people the wrong thing if you aren't careful.
Statistically, women aren’t as safe near men as they would be near a bear.
show me the stats that you apparently have? And since we need to be accurate here, we need to do 1:1 relations of human-bear interactions, and woman-man interactions. Otherwise we're just practicing statictn'ts
And I get that you’d like to think that you’re somehow protected from being in danger.
i don't i've interacted with hundreds, if not thousands of people, and walked past probably tens of thousands, it not hundreds within my lifetime. So far i'm not dead.
I haven't interacted with a bear that many times. Let alone once. I think i'll take my chances on the so far proven stat. As opposed to the, unknown stat.
If you’d like everyone to sit down and listen, maybe start by listening when women speak up about their lived experience instead of trying to minimize it. You can’t have a genuine discussion about this when so many are trying to “what about” every time the topic comes up.
i mean look, i'm going to be bluntly honest here, i don't really want to listen, because i don't care. In the same way that both of us detest murder, but haven't heard the story of every murder victim through the year. I just don't really have the brain space to store that right now.
If you want to talk about the problem, and the potential solutions though, i'm all ears, i love that shit, it's fun. Also, i'm pretty sure this isn't about an lived experience, this is more about the collective lived experience, packaged in an inflammatory statement designed to capture the attention and engagement of other people, for the express purpose of gathering attention around the issue, which, to be clear, did work.
The problem currently is that we're sitting here, yelling at me, about being a piece of shit or something instead of actually just talking about the underlying problem. Just for the record, i haven't even read your username, so if you want to come back to respond, i still won't read your username, so you're basically anonymous lol.
yeah i get the feeling we're on the same page. I just get overly brazen from time to time lol.
As for the second part, a friend of mine phrased this in an elegant way that i cannot state better "it's a thought experiment about the unknown" as in, this is a variation of "would you rather be stuck in a room with a leopard or 10000 spiders" where the familiarity with one is superseded by what you don't understand about the other.
Most people have some idea of what could possibly happen to them, and due to the human condition, the potentially, becomes almost certainly. As opposed to a bear, which nobody really understands anything about. Other than the fact that they're animals.
well, after having thought about it for hours. And i really mean hours (please help me, also don't mind me, i'm just autistic as fuck and think about these sorts of things a lot)
I have finally put together my ultimate conclusion on this topic. And it is as follows:
For starters, why am i in the woods? Presumably in this example i was just teleported out there at random, with one other entity, either a human or a bear. Now idk much about bear psychology, but if i were a bear, and a human popped up out of nowhere in front of me, i would lose my shit. So chances are im probably going to die.
As for a human, assuming a statistically random sample from the world, lets assume for the sake of this example, someone from within the same geographical area that i am in, because it makes logical sense for the statement here. The chances of them being 1. significant deviant enough that the second they see me, and decide they want to be a problem, is low enough that i'm willing to take it. Paired with the fact that often times abusers and rapists tend to be people you already know (it's just a basic fun fact about being around people) and in this case, it's probably someone i've never seen before, much less interacted with. I'm assuming the chances of me getting my shit fucked up are probably between 0-5% i feel like that's pretty reasonable. i can't imagine much more than like 10% of any given western population are active rapists. So we'll go with that. And like i said the bear? Probably going to flip it's shit. And even if it doesn't it's still gotta be higher than 10% i would assume.
Now, moving on to the secondary factors, we're lost in a forest. The very obvious factor here is that being there with another individual greatly increases your odds of being found/getting out, both due to collective knowledge accumulation between the two of you, and the likelihood that other people realize you're gone being twice as high (roughly) but we won't consider that aspect significant. So moving back to the productive aspects of having two people. Assuming we're the female in this case, and the other person is a male, as per the statement rules. That means we have someone who is more likely to be stronger, and more capable of exerting themselves, which could prove useful in a situation like this. However more people is still more better, so we'll say about a 100% productivity bonus just to be safe here. As aforementioned, we have a secondary source of knowledge here, so we can collectively decide on things, as well as think about them, which often leads to more correct/better solutions/outcomes. As well as the obvious benefit of having someone to socialize with, this is a natural morale booster. Humans are social creatures. Nuff said.
One more thing though, since we've established that there are potential benefits to this situation, we must now compare those benefits to the downsides of the other situation, so let's do that
being alone (having no additional help, assuming we aren't immediately mauled and eaten by the bear)
not being alone (the likely potential that you DO get help, and quite significant amounts of it, with the small additional chance of being raped and killed)
Ok i think that pretty much sums it up.
Alright, now moving on to the tertiary aspects of this, let's modify the original statement. And say that we didn't just randomly teleport, and that we walked into the woods with someone else (we aren't counting kidnapping because then this statement wouldn't really apply would it?) Anyway, now that we've pulled foul play off of the table. You're walking into the forest with someone you probably already know, or someone who you've gotten to know thus far. They aren't a stranger or at the very least, not a complete stranger, presumably you don't just wander into the forest randomly for no reason, so lets assume you're going on a hike or something. It's good exercise after all, so for one thing, you've got some level of equipment with you. Probably some level of self defense capability (depending on where you are and how much you care) you did not come into this with the intent of being lost, and you are with someone that you know.
I feel like i don't have to expand on why picking the bear in this option would be a bad choice...
alright, that concludes my lengthy essay on my opinion of this "thought experiment" feel free to yell at me or whatever, or engage with this, i probably missed something. New information always adds to the fun :) The whole point of a thought experiment is trying out new thoughts and weird ideas after all. Also just for the record, since some of you are probably curious. I have no opinion about these sorts of situations what so ever, because they aren't real, and don't exist, so the only valuable thing i can glean from them is through stats and situational analysis.
Think about why someone would prefer the much more likely bear mauling to the much less likely worst case scenario with a man.
the only reason i can think why someone would take that decision, is that they have no apriori knowledge of the situation, and simply assume something they have no knowledge about is going to be easier than that that they do have knowledge about. (which is often naive)
Or, and this is my theory, this is actually one big metaphor about the problems modern society faces, and it's not actually based on rational thought or decision making, and it's supposed to be, because the point is to point out the problem as i already stated. The question that leaves is why nobody seems to be talking about the fundamental underlying problem, and instead seems to be talking about bears.
I get it, there's a problem with this shit in society, why aren't we talking about it? Like if you want to make change happen, to improve society, we need to sit down and have a two sided discussion, instead of saying that you would prefer to be eaten by a bear, than be around a man "because a thing could potentially happen" this accomplishes almost nothing unfortunately.
Anyway, that's my current theory, maybe i'm wrong as fuck, idk, i'm welcome to any ideas, i don't understand why people keep talking about this the way that they are so i could use some background info (and don't tell me that it's because men sometimes rape women, and women don't like being around men as a result, i understand what the thought experiment is for, you don't need to explain that part to me, unless i'm wrong about it and misunderstand it lol.)
i'm just trying to figure out why this is becoming a colloquialism, i mean we've had would you rather for a while. But this is a very different format from it, and it's rather, obtuse. Is the most polite way i can think to explain it.
I hate that i enjoy sociology sometimes, this is one of those times. People suck.
personally i'm not insulted, i get it, i understand the problems, but i also don't understand this at all.
It's like it's hyper polarized almost. The second someone says something or asks a question the response is almost verbatim "yeah but bear wont rape me" (incredibly shitty verbatim quoting but this isn't a fucking PHD paper so dont @ me lol)
Like i get that there's a problem we should be talking about. Why aren't we? We're just reiterating the same statement over and over again, expecting for something to change suddenly.
It's almost an over abundance of caution, similar to "stranger danger" when in reality, the person most likely to abuse your children, is you or someone you know. Not just a random stranger. Which in it of itself can breed an anti-safety culture, where people aren't concerned about people they know "because they would never do this" only to find out that, yes, in fact, they would do that.
It’s so incredibly easy to polarize. We see it in this thread too. The top of this comment thread is a polarization too. Essentially dividing men into 2 distinct set of groups. You’re either good or a villain. This dichotomy is ridiculous and every social community eats it up like crazy, this Lemmy included. These create effects of over abundance, as you mention of caution, fear and hate.
yeah, i just don't understand how people engage in this and don't feel even the littlest bit of fascist tinge to it, because this is how fascist power structures come into play. This is literally how they work. You have an in group, and an out group, anybody in the in group is loyal to you, and anybody in the outgroup is fucking dead.
i can't answer the question unless i'm given more information smh.
If we're talking a magical forest shark, i'm not sure i want to ask questions about why it's there. And why it hasn't died yet, presumably. And if we're in a wet environment, then i'm curious how that's accomplished. The ocean is very big.
Addiction is a scary thing ( lemmy.world )
After announcing increased prices, Spotify to Pay Songwriters About $150 Million Less Next Year ( www.billboard.com )
When Bloomberg reported that Spotify would be upping the cost of its premium subscription from $9.99 to $10.99, and including 15 hours of audiobooks per month in the U.S., the change sounded like a win for songwriters and publishers. Higher subscription prices typically equate to a bump in U.S. mechanical royalties — but not...
All my real Americans from US State stand up! ( lemmy.world )
Windows is hell, i need to do something
Yo linux team, i would love some advice....
Shell sold millions of carbon credits for carbon that was never captured, report finds ( www.cbc.ca )
Shell sold millions of carbon credits for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that never happened, allowing the company to turn a profit on its fledgling carbon capture and storage project, according to a new report by Greenpeace Canada....
Proton Mail Discloses User Data Leading to Arrest in Spain ( restoreprivacy.com )
How to opt out of the privacy nightmare that comes with new Hondas ( sherwood.news )
The easiest problem ( discuss.tchncs.de )
https://mastodon.social/@lovegame/112402050452885908
Russia threatens Britain with retaliation if involvement in Ukraine war deepens ( www.pbs.org )
Russia on Monday threatened to strike British military facilities and said it would hold drills simulating the use of battlefield nuclear weapons amid sharply rising tensions over comments by senior Western officials about possibly deeper involvement in the war in Ukraine....
Users ( lemmy.world )
rule ( lemmy.zip )
[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]
Why haven't you taken the bear pill? ( jlai.lu )
Tap for contextSome woman on the internet said she would feel safer spending a night in the woods with a random bear rather than with a random man