You must log in or register to comment.
The one on the right is a bearded 8 year old who never saw snow. He has a beard due to micro plastics. He thinks all pictures online of snow are AI generated. He’s also an asshole to everyone and rightfully so because his life and planet has been doomed. Welcome to 2034.
Seriously, though, not fair. Want a way out of this hell.
True neckbeards are born with it. It’s only the posers that get theirs by injecting PFAS into their balls.
70s, 80s and 90s were absolute peak humanity and things like these comments are the proof of that.
he’s also adversarial ai
and his willy is 8 inches long but he’s insecure because his ai girlfriend told him its small
And that’s the same person who makes wild absurd claims but well just go off the rails and tell you to do your own research
"Of course they would say that. Those Liberal, left wing universities, with their peer review, aren’t to be trusted.
These hard-right think tanks (masquerading as anything other than a glorified PR firm they are) on the other hand are the definition of unbiased knowledge"
And the sources they claim to have heavily researched often never say what they claim they say or are utterly full of shit.
ngl, I don’t comment nearly as often anymore out of concern for anything I say to be misconstrued, argued, or wanting verification like this meme. Ya’ll, I’ve got a job and a life, I can’t/don’t want to sit here and fight people. The worst gets assumed of anything and it gets difficult to have productive, much less positive discourse online.
This is also due to a distinct drop in reader comprehension. One of the largest parts of reading comprehension is being able to infer the intended audience for a particular piece of work. You should be able to read a news article, see a commercial, read a comment, etc and infer who it is aimed at. And the answer is usually not “me”.
People have become accustomed to having an algorithm that is laser focused to their specific preferences. So when they see something that’s not aimed at them it is jarring, and they tend to get upset. Instead of going “oh this clearly isn’t aimed at me, but I can infer who the intended audience is. I’ll move on.” Now they tend to jump on the creator with whataboutisms and imagined offense.
Maybe you make a post about the proper way to throw a football. You’ll inevitably get a few “bUT wHaT abOUt WhEElcHaiR uSerS, I hAvE a baD ShoUlDer aNd cAn’T thROW SO wHaT abOUt me, I haTE FoOtbAll wHY aRe yOU SHowiNG tHIs to Me, etc” types of comments. It’s because those users have lost the ability to infer an intended audience. They automatically assume everything they see is aimed at them, and get offended when it isn’t.
I have even noticed this started to affect the way media is written. Creators tend to make it a point to outright state their intended audience, just to avoid the negative comments.
This is a very interesting idea. It would certainly explain why people seem to constantly “infill” everything everone says with whatever gets them the most angry - the algo feeds them ragebait, so that’s what they see.
Hmm good point. Never realized there could be connection with hyper curated algorithm and main character syndrome.
Now I kinda understand why “just look away” makes no sense to these kinda people.
This is my first exposure to this idea and it’s quite compelling. Couple that with the perceived tone being argumentative instead of inquisitive or ignorant and that’s a recipe for disaster.
The fact the algorithms only care about engagement, positive or negative, means rage bait takes over too so that doesn’t help the perception that a question is actually an attack.
I first heard about it due to my buddy (a high school English teacher) complaining about how his incoming students were incredibly far behind in basic reading comprehension skills. We ended up having a pretty long talk about it, and he mentioned that all of his colleagues have noticed the same thing.
I did some digging, and discovered that language teachers everywhere have basically been lamenting the fact that the upcoming generation just straight up doesn’t know how to interpret media when it falls outside of their personal algorithms. I ended up talking with another buddy of mine (a writer for a magazine) and he mentioned that they have started needing to change the way they write, because people have simply lost the ability to comprehend what they read. Skimming the first one or two paragraphs is the new norm, even for in-depth news articles. So they have to load as much content into the early paragraphs as possible.
I’m wondering how many people skipped your comment because it was too long.
I’ve had people go “I don’t have time to read 3 paragraphs!”, as though that’s some kind of argument against the point I’m trying to make. Attention spans are down.
I tend to front-load my comments as much as possible, to try and avoid just that. Make the main point ASAP. But even then, there’s only so much you can do without sounding messy.
For instance, I front-loaded the part about reader comprehension. All of the “why” is in later paragraphs. But even if they only read the first few sentences, they’ll at least get my overall point.
It does make nuanced discussion impossible though. I work in a pretty specialized field (professional audio) with lots of snake oil myths about what will or won’t make your system sound better. There have been several times that I have seen people parroting this snake oil type stuff as if it is genuine advice. And often, this advice happens because the person only has a surface-level understanding of how audio works. Something sounds plausible, (and they don’t understand the underlying principles that would disprove it,) so they end up perpetuating the myth. So a lot of discussions boil down to “well kind of but not really” and people won’t bother reading anything past the “well kind of” part.
People who make memes mocking the expectation of a source are the ones responsible for the downfall of society
Not everything needs a source. There is such thing as “common knowledge” . Things get very out of hand and very messy if you try to source EVERY claim. Obviously there are limits to this and I put common knowledge in quotes for a reason but seriously I mean it when I say not everything needs a source.
Boo hoo.
Source?
birds used to be real
And they had arms
Obviously, that’s what the “arms race” refers to. Birds used to have very strong arms which they used while racing in their super-fast arm bikes.
Source? Because that’s so not true. Birds are an invention by the government, they are robots to spy on us. The government wants us to believe they always existed. It’s all fabricated lies created by the government. Source
I fucking hate newsletter emails but this is the only site I registered for one. I’m launching my ass off every single time. 😂 I love satire haha
F’real I think my kids have had maybe one snow day so far, and my oldest is in second grade. We live in southeast Mass.
I thought about buying a new snowblower, but the fact is that I think we had maybe one storm in the past 5 or 6 years where I actually would’ve used my old one. The little dustings we had were easily cared for by a shovel.
I also have a part of my driveway that has a lot of tree overhang and never really gets much snow on it. It also happens that the winter morning sun has a direct path to this patch of asphalt, so if we get only an inch or two, it’ll all melt away as soon as the sun comes up. Assuming it’s not too overcast.
Covid killed snow days around here, they are now e-learning days. They figure if teachers could handle an entire year of e-learning one day is nothing.
I think it’s totally reasonable to ask for a source about a historical claim if something hasn’t been true for over a decade?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I rather have a source to support a claim instead of “but it’s how I feel so it’s real! Scientists don’t know anything, stop debunk my feelings with facts because I know I’m right! I read it on Facebook!”
We need more reliable and supported sources and less fake news.
Don’t worry. It won’t happen like this. There will be no one left.
SOURc…
Or when you bring sources and they straight up ignore them entirely…
I understand not wanting to read or go through the entire Marxist-Leninist books I recommend, not everybody has the time for that, but a 5-20 minute article? You waste more time debating me after the fact than you would have just reading the article, at least do me the courtesy of skimming it and trying to engage with my points.
Perhaps peppering responses with links is counterproductive. Why not follow a more consistent strategy? Such an approach would for example summarize the opposition’s view in good faith, give a name to the fallacies in it, and respond not only by providing a link, but a short synopsis of what the link is and how it refutes those fallacies. This approach helps not only rebut the opponent, who may be unwilling to listen to reason, but everyone following the conversation in real time or in the future. For this reason it is also great to use archived versions of links, whenever you can.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I generally offer specific reading recommendations and explanations for why, the only time I “pepper” is if it’s to add supporting evidence that might be immediately disregarded otherwise. I don’t usually send a large reading list, usually it’s one article or book with an explanation of why it’s relevant. You can see my comment history for examples if you want.
Certainly. I try to do the same, in fact I craft my comments so that they are immediately useful to others. Nonetheless, this might be not enough. Trolls are there for a reason, and you have to accept that our comment-section skirmishes do not add up to much, especially when you consider state-sponsored trolling and mega-corporate push of the far right agenda, across all media outlets, including social media.
Marxist-Leninist books I recommend
Such as? Need a book to read next.
Depends, how familiar are you with Marxism?
The very broad strokes (not red-scared).
You’ve got a bit of a choose your own adventure!
If you consider yourself a liberal and generally against AES like the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc, Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic critical reexamination and reads very well. Nothing but constant truth bombs.
If you want to get into Marxism, I recommend The Principles of Communism followed by Socialism: Utopian and Scientific as well as Elementary Principles of Philosophy. An intro/FAQ of Communism, followed by the history of Socialism and how and why Marxism answers the problems with previous Utopian Socialists, and finally the best work on the philosophical aspect of Marxism, Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
If you want some quick reads, I love Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” as well as Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. Modern analysis, 20 minute reads, based on what we currently know and not written back in the period of Marx.
Finally, if you consider yourself a Marxist already, The State and Revolution as well as Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism are both Lenin’s most significant works.
Really though, the modern works and Blackshirts and Reds are great primers before delving into Marx, Engels, and Lenin themselves.
Woah! Thanks for the tips!
A cool book I like is This Soviet World. It shows the Soviet Union as experienced by the author in the 1930s.
No problem! If you finish them all and for some reason want more, I have plenty of other recommendations, and you can DM me if you have any questions. I personally really like reading the modern author I linked, they have a bunch of niche, specific essays like Dialectical Matetialism in the context of Quantum Mechanics (makes sense if you’ve read Elementary Principles of Philosophy) or Marxism vs Anarchism, or why Cooperatives aren’t Marxist (not a purity test! They are socialist but not Marxist). Have fun!
And their own sources are so heavily butchered or even lied about. I cannot count the amount of times people provided me with ‘sources’ that they claim were ironclad in their favor only for them to completely debunk their shit…
It’s called a “gish gallop” mixed with a disagreement about what this platform is, with a healthy mix of “ain’t nobody got time for that”. To some people this is a legitimate place of discussion, to others it’s a place to shit post. One thing that Reddit did get right was seperating the two groups from each other. Lemmy doesn’t do that as well unless you ask it to and for some people, they ain’t got time for that. That still leaves the people who are gish galloping but they’re not going anywhere so might as well adapt.
Just give me back the fucking 80s and 90s.
Fuck that. That got us here by not fixing any problems and just hiding issues in the beginning of social identity politics.
Still better than today.
The sources are released under a source-available license, you are legally prohibited from reading them
Or you can get a monthly subscription for only $39.9!
That subscription allows you to ask the question to an AI that may or may not hallucinate.
Well, then… At least we will have apparently made enough progress by then to have eliminated the penny from circulation.
Family Member: Russia needs to invade Ukraine because they need a shield against NATO.
Me: But NATO wasn’t going to attack them. It’s a defensive organization.
That’s what THEY want you to believe. (Was not able to clarify who “they” were during conversation, but got the impression it wasn’t nato)
Even if you believe Russia to be 100% in the wrong, the idea that NATO is a defensive organization is laughable. Not only has it historically been led by Nazis, the member-states are the most imperialist countries on the planet. It serves to protect an inherently violent status quo of brutal looting and exploitation of the Global South, and that’s without getting into aggressive operations from NATO.
removed by mod
I never said Russia didn’t invade Ukraine, my point is specifically that calling NATO a “defensive alliance” despite it’s sole purpose being maintenance of Western Imperialism is laughable. People who understand ACAB but defend NATO as “purely defensive” have an inability to understand imperialism.
My comment has been deleted for no reason. Enjoy.
Probably your ableist username.
It’s also hypocritical. NATO is willing to allow Ukraine to join, but not Russia:
The archives show irrefutably that the U.S. and German governments repeatedly promised to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch eastward” when the Soviet Union disbanded the Warsaw Pact military alliance. Nonetheless, U.S. planning for NATO expansion began early in the 1990s, well before Vladimir Putin was Russia’s president. In 1997, national security expert Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled out the NATO expansion timeline with remarkable precision.
Its behind a paywall can you copy paste?
Yep. After the USSR was murdered and the State sliced up and sold for spare parts to the Imperialist bourgeoisie in the west, there was a nationalist bourgeoisie that regained control of the Russian Federation’s resources and industry, and the West never forgave them for that. That’s why Russia is a far-right dystopia in many ways, but unlike far-right dystopias allies to the US Empire, the Russian Federation is depicted in a negative light exclusively in western Media, unlike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Argentina, etc.
What the actual hell
Which part?
-
The USSR was not murdered, it fell apart after decades of internal mismanagement and multiple leaders who were more invested in swinging their dicks around than feeding their people and dealing with the timebomb of internal ethnic tensions.
-
countries were already breaking away before the ‘death’ knell, they had been forcibly absorbed into a warmongering empire and wanted no further part in it.
-
reports of ‘people thought communism was better’ are not a trite thing to fling around, it’s a complex issue of fear of change, fuck capitalism live to work ideology, and people from a handful of very select countries who were perched very parasitically on the top of a heap to the absolute detriment of others getting butthurt at losing that position. There is a reason why no formerly occupied country wants to return to the USSR
4). THE USSR WAS LITERALLY DISSOLVED BY ITS FOUNDING MEMBERS
-
Not really true. Up to the end, the Soviets were well-fed, there were genuine issues but it was fine. The Economy was slowing down, and the Soviets were still largely planning by hand, which failed to scale well with increasing production, but necessities were more than covered. The system was working, if slowing.
-
A few SRs had rising nationalist movements towards the end, but up until the very end the vast majority voted to retain membership in the USSR. It wasn’t until afterwards that it began to be murdered from the top, from the botched coup, to the change in leadership roles that allowed for conflicts within what was supposed to be a centralized system.
-
Wealth disparity was far lower in the USSR than in post-soviet countries.
On top of this, the majority wished to retain Socialism and want to go back. I don’t “fling it around lightly,” this is a well-documented phenomenon, Capitalism is worse than Socialism for post-soviet countries. The USSR also wasn’t an Empire, nor was it warmongering, it materially supported anticolonial and anti-imperialist movements the world over.
- The USSR was not dissolved by Lenin or the other bolsheviks who founded it, lmao. This is absurd.
-
-
deleted by creator
What do you believe happened? It’s pretty clear that right up until it’s dissolution, the majority of the public had no idea it was going to collapse, nor did they want to replace Socialism with Capitalism. The majority of ex-soviets still claim it was better under Socialism than it is under Capitalism.
@sharkfucker420 We would have flying cars and spaceships in future
The future:
That’s a bit unfair. You can actually buy a flying car today. A few companies recently got their vehicle fully certified and are doing commercial sales. It’s not cheap. If you can’t afford a second Ferrari don’t bother.
The future is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed.
Yeah it’s called a helicopter.
Most of the extremely wealthy use then to avoid traffic and occasionally die in them cause flying is more complicated than SciFi made it seem.
Look at the mansions and companies that all include landing pads. They aren’t just for die hard movies.
And the modern replacement for the helicopter is the eVTOL. That one is also often called a flying car, although they’re not street legal. As far as I know nobody died in an eVTOL yet.
Right but none are what the past thought of. None of these are cars or street legal really in any way.
Also it’s cheating to say no one has died in them if nobody is really flying around them. There have been crashes but like a really limited sample size.
This one is street legal and flight certified: https://www.pal-v.com. The others are still doing certification. But yeah, it’s not really what people thought the future was going to be. It never is. Retrofuturism exists for a reason.
It’s gotten to a point where I just go ahead append a warning that I have no source and am just making casual conversation.
Source: my previous comment on Lemmy.
