I mean their post history seems to match, as does their presence here and comment.

I just think some people only believe in ideas insofar as they are in the groups that benefit from said policies.

Why is this type of privileged exclusionary 1 dimension opinion even upvoted?

There are multiple problems that matter at any given time.

Saying that racism is a distraction ignores the very real people who are being harmed right now because they aren’t you, and thus you don’t care about them. “I got mine” but about other issues.

Some take for a socialist to have really…

“Great my head already doesn’t fit through my doorframe as it is”

Hey, Arnold

The teleportation is obviously most powerful in terms of exploits

The dog could bring about the most technological advancement

I think Ill go for the eye color change though, because its so uncommon to have different eye colors.

Trump is massively losing support even with the republicans, because most care more about the economy and inflation than whatever random agenda trump decides on that day

Hitler did many things that also hurt their economy. Hate > any of that.

Poll numbers waning (relatively slightly actually), don’t negate the comparisons at all.

If you remember, Hitler was such a loose cannon, he was having them use their limited resources to build megatanks even while it had been shown that fewer, more practical tanks were clearly the answer, and they were already having massive trouble with the running gear of tanks they had already built that were too big to be practical for the time.

I’m aware of the polyanya principle but in this case it feels like most of the country isn’t just unified in not supporting him, it seems most are actively against him.

I have absolutely no idea what is giving you this impression, especially given his broad support from ceos, field reports, in surveys, etc.

It seems to me, pretty clear that people that supported him, almost entirely still support him, even if they complain about X, Y or Z. The number of people who are quite happy with what ICE is doing for instance is quite high amongst his base. To them, this is the biggest promise delivered on hurting marginalized people.

If that happened across the country I think we’d see massive revolt.

I am befuddled by this sentiment. The list of things which people have said this about, which then come true, followed by absolutely nothing happening is so long it would probably exceed the character limit.

Every day a red line people thought would mean death by execution by treason just 4 years ago is crossed, and then pretty much nothing happens.

The red line keeps moving, and nothing keeps happening. That is the plan after all.

I would agree they’re trying to normalize it, and they will try to keep taking it further and further, but we still have a ways to go considering the country’s reaction.

It feels like you are doing everything possible to pretend you’re in a nice warm bath as opposed to a boiling pot here.

The acceleration when looked at via a comparison to pre WW2 germany is at a faster not slower rate.

The power is being concentrated at lightning speeds.

The effect is essentially the same

The big problem is that its absolutely not the same. Its not the same for the exact reason you really don’t want to believe that he is. Using the word, and acknoledging its meaning and the trajectory would mean accepting reality as it is, and that is a bleak, frightening and depressing thought, but the sooner people have it, the better off they’ll be.

Oh, companies know. Social media have definitive data that show most users engage on anger. That’s why it’s in their core interest to promote rage baits and disinformation. More engagements means more traffic. More traffic means more advertisers. More advertisers means more revenues.

I think you might be misunderstanding my point here. Rage bait, and hate are separate to the idea of toxic positivity, which is a separate concept companies also use and abuse, and which is the subject of my comment.

Hell, even before social media, news tends to report more on negative news than positive ones. Because bad news is tantamount to hearing gossips, and we all love gossips. I know many of us will say bad news makes us sad, and yet we still tune in to any news.

I actually disagree with this one fundamentally.

Good news just isn’t as important as bad news on average.

Good news is typically long term, progressive and rarely has singular big moments. “X number of people moved out of poverty through the effects of economic policies started XX years ago” isn’t something that it makes sense to give time over “flash flooding hits current location”.

More than that, the news cycle is ill equipped to go into detail for more nuanced stories, and it would be rife with organizations like the world economic forum cooking stats to present much more peachy societal outcomes under policies they favour vs more objective or neutral viewpoints.

Kind of on a tangent, I notice this as well that some people seem more predisposed to negative thinking. I think it’s just hardwired into them. Although, I have to say, in my field of work, negative thinkers tend to have good attention to detail.

Quite frankly, I hate absolutely everything about the sentiment of this snippet. The idea that negativity is bad inherently is, I well, looking at my previous comment, I think I’ve already expressed that point.

Negative points are goals to hit. Positive ones are literally just less important. They’re check offs on your todo list. Important perhaps for internal motivation, but not so when communicating news, events, research (mostly) etc.

It is a good trait to a limited degree, but it could impair relationships both at work and outside, if one is too suspicious and distrustful of everyone.

I would say this doesn’t seem wholly unreasonable.

The thing is, people themselves outside of business motives hate negativity.

People regularly get angry at others for bringing up criticisms of everything from foods to their favourite media products.

Even decades ago they’d give them names like negative Nancy, and within social settings the worst people often can win by weaponizing civility to quell legitimate backlash against immoral actions.

I mean, fuck, think about how many stories you’ve heard of people who have been the victims of sexual assault, who get told by normal people to shut up and whose experiences were diminished because it harshed other peoples mellow?

People suck, and one of the biggest reasons people suck, is they would prefer a harmful peaceful positivity than a tumultuous improvement causing negativity.

I think these companies are hooking into these human flaws in ways that hurt us, and benefit them with information asymmetry.

I don’t think we can properly fix these flaws without somehow getting normal people to acknowledge that negativity is not just good, but vitally important.

For instance only about 35% of the population even voted for Trump, so he doesn’t really have the support of the people.

The Nazi party got 43% of the votes the election before secondary parties were banned. They had 88% turnout. This means they had 37.8% of the population vote for them.

Its extremely common for people to really, out of an excess of optimism and fear hope that clearly the nazis were so obviously different, but that wasn’t the case.

The Nazi party in that last relatively free 1933 election had to form a coalition government. None of that meant that they weren’t fascists.

The idea that they don’t really have the immediate majority support of the people is not relevant to the damage that followed. Support can be manufactured by guns and threat of financial and social ruin.

Our democratically elected officials are still voting on bills, and they are still (mostly) being signed off by the president.

The same things were applying at this point in time in Nazi Germany. They just started to do increasingly wild illegal things and had their fire hose of falsehood machines up and running. There were continuous events of large scale that if they occurred on their own would take over news cycles for months, just like are occurring now. Rights were being dismantled just like they are now.

Many things pretty strongly align with the idea that this very well might have been the last fair election.

The FCC did TRY to silence someone, but the will of the people made it not happen.

Did it? or was this, as their strategies have been, to repeatedly do heinous things until they are normalized.

What actually happened here? Rights were flagrantly violated, then they soft backtracked, and then they issued the same threats again (on going) where they will likely backtrack less this time, and so on.

No one was punished. No one is in jail. The people in power then, are still in power now.

I think it’s also just the reasons someone is doing something matters, even if it practically doesn’t.

If it practically doesn’t, it practically doesn’t.

Why did hitler act the way he acted? We aren’t sure, but the results of this unhinged hateful man leading their country became obvious.

he hasn’t been able to enact “if you are trans you will be killed” like I would expect under fascism

Im sorry but what???

Do you think the Nazis were killing jews on day one? Fascism doesn’t only become fascism once they’ve done the big bad thing and the credits are rolling. It w was still fascism way before the gas chambers were spooled up.

By all accounts, the progress of their team this term has been faster than hitlers rise to power. There isn’t really any reason to just assume it will stop itself when hes been able to bounce off any sort of semblance of consequences for his actions thus far.

and he said trump plays to the crowd rather than saying what he believes

Thats most politicians to some degree and something hitler also did, like where he co-opted various labels to dismantle them.

I think narcissistic con man fits everything he does more accurately than fascist

I’m not sure I see the reasoning to think it can’t be both.

Do I think it’s actual fascism? No. But all of those actions are the dictionary definition of fascism

Do you not notice any dissonance here?

You can be banned, but there isn’t really a shadow banning mechanism here.

I suppose you could say regular banning is, as in you get no alert, but its not quite the reddit version where you don’t know.

Also, if your argument was about mods, you certainly didn’t say it initially.

It’s a shame because there a lot of potential here to make something that unites people instead of continuing the echo chamber model that the big corporations have worked hard to put us all in because it earns them money to keep us angry with one another.

This enlightened centrism bs that pretends that “divide” is some simple concept that needs to be attacked by “both sides” is just either the absolute laziest way to sift through issues or purposefully malicious.

I’ll keep blocking shit until I only have the productive instances left.

Interesting that to you “productive” is quite literally the opposite of productive, and really appears to just mean places that agree with your enlightened centrism.

Lemmy is proof that the corporate model has trained us all so well over the past decade to think that being online is all about getting mad at politics and each other so we are basically perpetuating the bullshit trends they started like the brain dead lemmings we are.

This part right here is just a wild baseless theory, and sounds extremely privileged to think that discussing serious issues that are especially important right now means “being online is all about getting mad at politics and each other so we are basically perpetuating the bullshit trends they started like the brain dead lemmings we are.”

You people are ruthless and assholes about your opinions. You are the last thing from a bastion for free speech. If something is conservative, or even moderate, every one here wants to insult and berate you.

Its always funny when people think that people using their free speech to be critical of their free speech means they don’t have free speech.

Why do you think your opinions are automatically owed respect?

Lemmy is super bias and left leaning, your ignorance is potentially a very big problem.

The implication that having a leaning means ignorance is a ridiculously open appeal to moderation fallacy.

This is funny, but also just to bring reality to a funny comment, there is tons of piss porn where the women clearly do not enjoy it, but, and this is something a lot of people seem to not be able to understand; the enjoyment of all parties involved is not necessary for many people to get off. Heck, for some, its better without the fake enjoyment because you’re being lied to less.

Why would I need to give you a list to point out what is wrong with your statement.

They’re obvious though.

• Copyright issues with the sale of ai services

• Worker displacement without proper social systems to manage them

• Unclear biases within black box systems

• The requirement to change education based on their existence

• The environmental damage caused through the energy used in training.

The list is long quite frankly. Longer than this even.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

There are many private businesses in China, probably most are.

Many other countries you would not call socialist also have the government owning critical industries/companies (like outside of NA, most governments own their state resource extraction businesses). The typical things we discount as not being socialist but that actually are such as mail etc also count.

You are basically arbitrarily choosing when to call something socialist vs not socialist by choosing to call china, a booming capitalist state with tons of humanitarian harms, just as any other booming (or used to be booming) capitalist state that of course also has socialist elements.

The rational person would instead focus on what else should be socialized because gradual progress is the only rational route. Irrational people spout off expecting bold revolutions where other people die horrifically so their idealist perspectives can be satiated, which more than likely would end up falling further towards the other direction.

History exists

Something you mention repeatedly as a way to add false credibility to your ridiculous stances, but also something which you can only draw vague, poorly correlated to examples with.

I’m starting to feel like Im arguing with an LLM with talking points designed to aggravate and talk me into a circle.

That is a crazy amount of nonsensical word salad to use to try to call someone else out for lacking understanding.

I mean just the flawed idea that all trading algos are all neural nets, or that all neural nets are the same or that the rectangle of ML doesn’t include neural nets… These are all wildly erratic non sequiturs.

as does the PRC, as do other socialist states.

The capitalist country with slightly more social sytems?

At this point this is a joke.

Historically, your method of trying to work within a system designed not to change in order to help ease people into socialism never works.

Historically there is no historically and you continue to make vague statements that don’t actually call for any positive actions and instead call for apathy.