Chetzemoka

There only being that one playbook is the exact reason why I have a patch on my backpack that reads: “Evil is boring”

We have to pay for the services we use somehow. I’d rather it be cash than the details of my entire life. But the money to operate those services has to come from somewhere

Agreed wholeheartedly. That said, Oppenheimer is officially the only biopic I’ve ever watched twice and will definitely watch again someday. Which makes it my favorite biopic, for whatever that is worth about a genre that I loathe.

I don’t know that it’s better; just pointing out that it is kind of how the country works right now. Around 10% of their entire population works overseas at any given time. And those higher paid workers like nurses can bring a lot of value to their families back home.

Is it right? Is it a good idea? I can’t speak to that. But the country has developed an entire administration to deal with it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Filipinos#:~:text=This%20number%20constitutes%20about%2011,be%20young%20and%20gender%2Dbalanced.

(I work with a lot of Filipino nurses who have explained some of this mentality to me.)

Almost 10% of the entire GDP of the Philippines is the money those overseas workers send home:

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Philippines/remittances_percent_GDP/#:~:text=Remittances%20as%20percent%20of%20GDP&text=For%20that%20indicator%2C%20we%20provide,from%202021%20is%209.31%20percent.

You’re not wrong about the fact that we underinvest in training our own population to do this work though.

Maybe let’s try focusing on content and not personal characteristics of the presenters:

https://youtu.be/Q0yL2GezneU?t=1347&si=wZjBIJkdmK8CwzIm

I’m way more annoyed by that terrible echoey microphone

You have to wonder if we aren’t just confirming what the Great Filter is. There may not be any space faring civilizations.

“The truth is you love censorship, and so does everyone else. The only question is whether you’re ready to admit it.”

https://gizmodo.com/why-censorship-is-part-of-everyday-life-section-230-1850095976

So this is a nonfiction work about the author’s actual experiences as a teenager? Yeah we really need to stop pretending teenagers are innocent little flowers who never encounter stuff like this (that they often don’t understand and have no one to talk to about)

That’s a nice looking Nebelung you got there. They’re such beautiful cats

A statement like this should get you instantly booted out of Congress

There are so many consumers MONOPOLIES now that products that aren’t good or exploit their users can still have a healthy market.

FTFY

They can buy themselves a few years at best without a functioning supply chain. We all depend on society, no matter how much they like to deny it

They think they do. No amount of money will protect a person from the collapse of a civilization. Never has, never will. Their plans are very much predicated on the assumption that markets will somehow magically continue to function after the general populace has lost all faith in them

Their content promotion algorithms are not protected by section 230. Those algorithms are the real problem, pushing more and more radical content onto vulnerable minds. (The alt-right YouTube pipeline is pretty well documented. Reddit, I think, less so. But they still promote “similar content”)

When one single individual who isn’t the executive can obstruct the entire system like Tubbs and Turtle, it’s time to burn the system and start over

Dude, you’re the first person to get the reference!

Taki, beratna. Be well.

The deluge of information is definitely a problem, and it’s a problem that is exploited by bad actors (see: “firehose of falsehood” tactic explicitly endorsed by Russian intelligence that was used to great effect by Trump during his time as president)

I think A solution for the time being (perhaps not THE solution ultimately, but for now) is to adhere to quality evidence based whenever possible, which is something we definitely can review for ourselves. Vet and re-vet individual sources to determine which ones we can trust. And beyond that, go with a consensus. There will always be that one expert who disagrees with the majority on any issue no matter what, but if the general consensus is in a certain direction, then that’s the way we should try to go

It’s a rather bizarre argument, essentially saying “it’s not the whole solution so it’s not a solution at all”

Lawdamercy, can you please say it louder for the people in the back whinging that they refuse to vote for Biden because his Climate Bill wasn’t perfectly everything all at once? In the face of the Republican denialist obstructionism, it’s pretty fucking miraculous. The ultimate solution to climate change is going to be a patchwork quilt of a million different tiny solutions

No individual human being has infinite time to dedicate to sifting through every insane conspiracy theory and terrible political theory that has ever been thunk. We, as a species, need to decide what we should and should not spend our limited time engaging with. Sometimes, that means listening to experts who have taken the time to study the subject in more detail than we will ever have time in our lives, and trusting their word on the matter.

For example, no one feels like they have to waste public time refuting the existence of aether (yet, anyway, though I’m sure the flat earthers will get around to it.) For another example, smart people who study history for a living identify several of key characteristics common to fascist political parties that look suuuuuper familiar to anyone looking at the modern day Republican party in the US.

We do not have infinite resources. Infinite time, infinite brain power, infinite public discourse. Just as it is widely recognized that it’s fine to limit discussions of pro-anorexia groups for the public good, so too is it fine to limit the reach of harmful ideas like vaccine conspiracy theories, Neo-nazi recruitment of young people, whether or not people with this characteristic or that characteristic have equal rights and deserve life and freedom, climate change “debate”…

And some “ideas” that might not seem that harmful on their face should be suppressed when it is clear they are being deliberately used to lead people down paths toward much more harmful ideas for the profit of grifters. (Like Qanon and the Alt-Right YouTube pipeline)

It is ok for us to moderate what is said in public. We have always done this because it is necessary to a functioning, healthy society.