haloduder @ haloduder @thelemmy.club

Posts

7

Comments

178

Joined

2 wk. ago

People are angry about this?

I didn't even know he represented kindness.

He also puts into perspective how easily manipulated we all are.

We still give the most amount of power to the least trustworthy people. It's disgusting.

I wish, but no.

For one, they would blame religion.

Barring that, they would find any other differences among us to blame.

Barring that, rich people will use their power and influence to make sure we find some way to blame each other instead of them.

The main reason why we refuse to blame rich people for our problems is because most of us want to be the rich people causing the problems. Until we can get that idea out of most of our heads, we shouldn't expect these problems to be solved.

I don't have much hope, personally.

I'm not going to assume that you are exceptional when you haven't given me any reason to. Thus far, everything you've said is typical of people defending consumerism without any regard to magnitude.

Trying to argue that 'there's no ethical consumption' (which I assume you believe) is a tactic you people use to avoid admitting how you're part of the problem or that you can take steps to solve it. If I were to go live out in the woods, then you can point at me and say "See!? Either we spend as much money and consume as much as we can or live in the woods like a crazy person! There's no in between!"

It's not a purity test. You're looking for any reason to make it seem like the person ordering doordash everyday is contributing to the problem at the same level as the person cooking their own meals every day. That's not true and you're going to get upset at me for pointing this out because it causes your cognitive dissonance to flare up.

No, but I contribute to it at a level that we all can participate in so I'm not part of the problem.

If you're implying that I have to go live off in the woods or something to criticize consumerism, then you're just looking for excuses to not consume less. You've been conditioned to believe it's "all or nothing," so any mitigation of your contribution doesn't matter.

Really? Can you share sources of these projections?

Edit: Downvotes, but no sources. Tribalism strikes again!

I guess you don't know what consumerism means, or you're not willing to admit its drawbacks because you're a part of it.

The average person has difficulty admitting when they are incorrect.

Yes, Reagen is considerably more responsible for the current economic landscape than orange man. Consumer culture is an even bigger contributor to the disparity in wealth than any politician.

But tribalism is strong on both sides, while both sides want to believe they're above it.

It really puts into perspective how 'intelligent' the average person is these days.

The disparity in wealth wasn't any better under Biden.

I blame consumerism.

What lemmy instances allow freedom of speech?

Except the for all the other tech-minded people here...

It's more than that.

The average person is legitimately afraid of knowledge.

This is where everyone from the old internet retreated to.

All we need now are instances that allow freedom of speech.

Probably not, since most people don't know this kind of information about most countries.

Na, that's not true.

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/practice

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/practice

I'm asking about data stored on servers.

Lemmy, for example, has its instances owned by people and those people can do whatever they want with the data that is stored on their servers. If there is ever a legal issue involving a user's posts on Lemmy, how can courts or law enforcement determine that the owner hasn't manipulated the data to protect or harm the user?

Sure, they can look at other servers' since Lemmy is federated. But in the case of a non-federated service (which most are) or instance, this kind of verification wouldn't be possible.

Thanks.

That seems like it would prevent tampering after a certain point, but it doesn't verify that the data hasn't been maliciously altered before the image is created.

The industry standards would be what major tech companies do in order to comply and make sure that when their data is involved in a legal battle, they can prove that it hasn't been tampered with.

Any country is fair game since I'm interested about any general knowledge, but I'm mostly curious about Western nations such as the United States.