aski3252

Everyone uses their phones while eating or pooping.

We do??

we live in a system that puts immoral people in power

Not just that, it pressures people to act immoral.

but I also don't have to make excuses for those immoral people acting immorally.

First of all, explaining isn't excusing. Second of all, one perversity of the system is that it makes everyone complicit by forcing everyone to participate, as consumers, participants in production, as participants in the political system, etc.. If you push that to it’s logical conclusion, everyone who isn’t committing their entire life towards overcoming the system can be blamed to act immoral, depending on how strict your morals are.

Putting too much focus on blaming people’s morals instead of focusing on the system that corrupts people’s morals is counter productive and creates a culture where people trying to do the right thing burn out and adopt an attitude of indifference because no matter how much you are trying to do the right thing, there are always more things to do. It also creates a culture where people compare and compete with eachother’s moral worth, which can lead to fracturing and infighting.

some of them do have a sense of shame

Shaming people into acting moral is not very effective imo.

There were plenty of things that she spoke out on

She sounds like a decent person, but my point is that if you look hard enough, you will find moral failings (same as with every human). I could blame her for not speaking out against Israel, for eample, and condemn her for it.

To be clear, I’m not in general against applying pressure on people in power by voicing disapproval or outrage where it is effective. What I find moderately annoying in this example is that people seem to focus more on Ed Sheran instead of focusing on the people with the actual power behind the decision to kick him (like Robert Kraft)..

If becoming one of the world's wealthiest musicians requires prioritisation of your brand over improving the world in ways

There is no if, that's generally how it works. As I said, there are always exceptions, but when you are a super famous pop star on a major label, you probably ended up there because you do what your label/manager tells you to do, not because you alienate part of your fanbase/boss/business associates.

becoming a wealthy musician is absolutely a sign of moral failure.

I don't even fundamentally disagree, I just think you are setting a moral standard that unfortunately will not be upheld by a majority of people if they were given the chance, which means you are setting yourself up for disappointment. Most people would choose not to swim against the current and take a "neutral stance" (or whatever stance their boss wants to them to take) over risking their career, that’s just how most humans work.

That’s why it is useless to expect CEO’s, politicians, business owners, etc, to act according to your morals. They act based on incentives, and the only way to make them act according to your morals to some degree is by forcing them to.

It's also not even necessarily detrimental to the brand to associate it with acting morally

If your entire brand is “I’m a pop musician who makes unprovocative pop music for everyone and don’t make public statements about controversial political issues“, it can absolutely be detrimental..

I really don’t think it’s that surprising: Venue owners band together and tell that multiple concerts of your huge tour with 15 support acts is essentially chanceled unless you kick one support act. For pretty much any tour promoter/organizer/manager, the decision is obvious..

that only made Dolly Parton more beloved.

To be honest, I’m hardly familiar with Dolly Parton, but wasn’t she famously silent on controversial political issues? At least I found this quote from her sister

"You know, I’ll tell everything, and I like everybody know what I think about it, not her. Because she’s a good businesswoman. She’s a good businesswoman.”

I also didn’t find any comment on Israel or Palestine from her, so I’m not sure why you are using her as an example, maybe I’m missing something? Because it seems to me that maybe she was beloved across the political spectrum because she didn’t publicly speak out on controversial issues..

I don't really care about him, but this line of thinking creates assumptions and expectations that are almost never going to be met. He is one of the wealthiest musicians, he isn't just a performer, he is a businessman. If he was willing to risk or limit the success of his brand for his views (assuming his views are pro palestine), he probably wouldn't be in the position he is in.

At the end of the day, it is a mainly systemic issue, not an issue of moral failiure. Some individuals will push against the systemic currents, but this will always be the exception, not the rule.

The only way to combat systemic issue is by changing/replacing the system through collective action, not individual action. Ed Sheeran chancling his tour in solidarity with Palestine would not stop western nations from supporting israel. The only way is a nations citizens collectively applying pressure.

I'm very critical of AI, but complete bans on AI use are, at the moment, pretty much unenforcable. Not hard to enforce, not impossible to enforce 100%, but completely impossible to enforce in general. There currently is no reliable way to verify if and how much someone used AI, except maybe if you monitor people's systems (and even with a totalitarian surveilence system, coders will probably be able to bypass it).

Obviously, if someone who has no clue about coding uses it to write the entire code, you notice. But that's simply not how most coders use AI..

Edit: And additionally, mandating disclosure of AI can make sense, but it can also create the false assumption that codeers/code without any disclosure are verified to not use AI when coding when it simply cannot be verified. It depends entirely on the coder being honest and transperant about their use of AI. And given the passionate pushback, coders are definitely incentiviced to not disclose AI use.

But the issue is that in practise, there is no viable way to verify wether or not AI has been used at all. In other words, the disclosure of AI use entirely depends on the person providing the code, wether disclosure is mandated or not.

If there was enforcment to disclose AI use, it would create a false assumption that code which claims no AI use, is verified to contain mo AI use, which again, cannot be verified by anyone.

So it's not that it's hard to enforce, it's not that it's impossible to enforce 100%, it's that there currently is no viable way to enforce it at all.

A lot of reasons. First of all, it's not really their goal to make a good OS for users. They know that 95% will use windows no matter what, especially businesses, because they still more or less have a monopoly, especially in the desktop market.

In other words, any ressources spent on improving the desktop OS experience past the bare minimum is excess because they don't really get anything concrete in return.

Yes, windows is less efficient than other os, but until recently, this wasn't a problem for microsoft since you can just throw more/better hardware at the issue, which is a win win. They have to spend less ressources at optimizing code for better performance and, I imagine, they get a better cut since their hardware partners sell more devices because hardware gets obsoete every couple of years.

And in the server environment, they want it to be increasingly expensive because windows server is mostly used in cases where there is no alternative, and they want it all in their cloud.

Also, a lot of what is annoying about windows is per design. Ads, sponsorship ads, forced accounts, etc.

The only way to get steam hardware, according to support, is to have a credit card, address and steam account from an EU country or other supported country. Or wait if a local reseller (like digitec) gets their hands on them.

If you care about age verification then steer clear of Red Hat associated distros like Fedora.

Fedora has age verification?

>Same, but I’m leaning towards the idea that us having numbers alone isn’t enough in this situation if we don’t show why numbers matter. It’s why I’m critical of leaders. Our masses are upset, angry, reactive. We need leaders who can channel and guide the strength of numbers and turn it into something useful

That’s what I mean when I say we need organisation. Leaders sure, but an overreliance on leaders is dangerous too. What we mainly need is organisation and discipline.

>Losing faith in their leader is not the same as losing faith in the ideology.

I completely agree, but it’s a potential opening. As long as they still have faith, it’s virtually impossible to reach anyone. When they are losing faith, it provides an opportunity to spread that doubt to not just a leader, but to other aspects of their worldview. It won’t work with everyone, it takes time and won’t work over night and it maybe won’t work in very aspect, but it’s a start.

>Massie and MTG are perfect examples of this.

We have to make a big distinction between leaders/politicans/progapandists and voters. Leaders/politicians/propagandists always have a political and/or financial incentive to hold their line. They might change leaders if it is beneficial to them, they might even switch sides when it is beneficial for them, but one has to assume it's purely opportunistic.

With voters, it CAN be different. But again, getting people to change their ideology/philosophy/core worldview isn’t easy and doesn’t happen automatically, which is why the “Fuck them, it’s not my job to educate them, they have to change their mind by their own, else I won’t have any contact with them“ attitude is a big mistake in my view because that practically guarantees them voting.

>We should be accepting of whatever help we can get, even if it’s some an-cap that only sides with us 10% of the time.

I don’t even think we should just accept them in our rank or work with them necessarily, I’m saying we need to have some kind of exchange with them in order to oppose their view. I don’t think you disagree with me, but so many online leftists seem to have the opinion that we should simply ignore them or tell them to fuck of until they somehow become radical leftists by themselves. That’s pretty much my main point.

>Alligator Alcatraz and El Salvador are not Dachau or Auschwitz. I agree that we’re not at the level of industrialized genocide like the Nazis were, but we’re deeper than should be allowed.

While I do understand the Nazi Germany comparisons to some degree, I’m not sure how useful they are. Conentration Camps were not unique to Nazi Germany or invented by them. And while Trump and the Trump Regime has some things in common with Nazi Germany and fascism, there are important differences. After the nazis seized power, they had near absolute power very soon. Opposition parties and/or opposition groups were outlawed and members imprisoned on a large scale. Very soon, any effective resistence from within was virtually impossible.

That’s not the case in the US and Trump still has a long way to go until they get there. People’s rights and liberties are definitely under attack, but they do still exist in some form and that must be exploited as long as you still can. Trump has no absolute power, he cannot simply arrest every member of the DSA, etc. Again, there is definitely a tendency towards autocracy, but it’s not done in the same way as in Nazi Germany, so tactics are not the same.

My suggestion is that this is not a situation where voting in better candidates

I'm not talking about voting, I'm talking about building organised mass movements who eventually can excercise leverage to achieve goals.

Maybe I'm too old school, but I still believe that the only way to achieve the radical change is by organised mass movements.

And you can forget about that if you are not even willing to get into contact with people who are losing faith in their right wing leader, but who might not have abandoned all their right wing believes. That's the perfect time to engage and further challenge their views, otherwise nothing will change and they will fall for the next right winger.

I think the solution is doing what we did against this kind of bigotry in 1861 and 1941

It's not 1941, it's not even 1933 yet, although very close to it. And until then, you shouldn't have a working class civil war, but organize..

“Fuck ‘em” isn’t a dismissal of their beliefs, it’s a dismissal of their right to exist.

I'm not sure what your point is or rather I think I'm misunderstanding. Are you suggesting leftists should start to assasinate all trump voters? If yes, that's very silly and not something that will happen. And if it would happen, it would be devestating for the left and only benefit the right. Violence is their game, our game is numbers and leverage.

But yeah, I think we are talking past eachother.

basically all cardio machines at the gym are going to be boring as all hell, going outside and doing activities is a lot more fun

Or, alternatively, use the stationary nature of indoor machines to make it less boring. I typically read. Or maybe watch a show or movie.

Outside is great too of course, but bad weather can be hard to overcome depending on where you live.