Michael @ M1ch431 @slrpnk.net

Posts

0

Comments

67

Joined

4 mo. ago

He's definitely not living poorly. His legacy will still be "filthy rich".

He's not giving so much that he can't live a life with more privilege and access to abundance than the overwhelming majority of people. He also wields more power and influence than most could ever hope for.

Yes, I do think it's important to address the echo-chambers and the centers of propaganda, no matter which side of the coin you're looking at.

To the side that you're referencing: Fox News (et. al), conservative think-tanks, and the many conservative influencers spread these perspectives and viewpoints. Responsible individuals and organizations convince everyone that it is a matter of survival that they don't contribute to their societies.

These groups and influencers convince people that others shouldn't have it easy because it invalidates their struggle. They also convince them that the government is out of control, that it is interested in taking their wealth and their rights, and that it largely doesn't serve their needs — that they are getting a raw deal.

So these individuals want a small government. They don't really care what happens to society at large because they are just focused on themselves, potentially their families, or at best a portion of their local communities or churches. They are in the weeds of survival mode and tribalism — they are warding off invaders and perceived threats and stopping others' ability to take what they earned, including their status and power in society.

The answer is finding the real cost of capitalism, of ineffective governance, and of not making any forward movement as a global society. What are the real costs of this apathy and inaction? It can't be something that you simply argue with science — with the costs of runaway industrialization, because they have been propagandized to think our emissions/etc. have no affect on the world at large. They are thinking small, and again, in a state of survival.

Conservatives, under the rule of this current administration, are going to be faced with some harsh realities and truth as this stagnation (and at worse, this regression) continues. They are going to quickly find out the source and human cost of our goods, be it domestic produce or various other items sourced from exploited countries.

It's relevant to point out that an estimated 40% of US agricultural workers (arguably more) are undocumented immigrants. This administration is deporting workers that we depend on to work our fields, harvest our food, and likely produce the products that go on our shelves. They are doing so at a breakneck pace. When these conservatives are forced to work the fields to survive or forced to go into the factories, they will quickly understand how much blood, sweat, and tears go into their consumerism.

As for Doordash, it is a symptom of our apathy, the disconnection with our communities, and the result of local business being crushed. Just like Doordash being not so great, you can't go to the grocery store and not support modern slavery. You need to consume food to live. The food on our shelves is devoid of nutrition, it is loaded to the brim with chemicals and contaminants (like PFAs, from the use of biosolids to fertilize our crops), and it is vastly under-regulated and making us ill. Our soil practices are also unsustainable and they will only remain viable for approximately 60 more harvests.

If RFK and some of his proposals (particularly regarding food) resonate with these voters, there is hope yet, especially if these individuals get a wake-up call in the form of a food crisis, facing the consequences of alienating our trade partners, and our store shelves going empty.

They already resonate with the government being broken, and we don't need to give up anything as a society to thrive and live sustainably. We can accomplish all modern convenience and privilege with our technology and ingenuity without raping the environment.

These individuals are propagandized against green energy and regulation (industrial or otherwise). If we can convince them that everybody can thrive without breaking a sweat, and show them the costs of deregulation of our environments (e.g. their communities and their water tables) and the costs of deregulation on our health (their health and the health of their children), they will probably come around quick.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a63152930/proton-batteries/

If that technology is finished, we won't even need rare elements to store energy. It is a story that many slept on. Solar panels are very cheap comparatively to make.

The culture is already there. We have a great base called the constitution and its bill of rights — we largely already support concepts like democracy and human rights.

Humans and our units tend to be weak and vulnerable, we are easily manipulated, and we are easily corruptible. Capital has an greater influence on individuals (and especially our leaders and institutions) than forward momentum and the act of working towards solutions — making life better on this planet for everyone. Capital should not be a factor operating at a level above our ability to govern and direct our societies.

Humanity has to start to learn how to thrive and simultaneously learn to live in balance with the planet. Consumerism is certainly out of control, but it's reductive and unfair to single out any single person, group, or entity. Humanity is largely kept in survival mode (and also in fear, hate, and division), scarcity is artificial with our current level of technology and organization, and the truth of our consumerism (and its roots) is veiled to us.

Nobody besides the oppressed truly knows the extent of modern slavery, of modern child slavery, and of third-world exploitation.

In my eyes, the solution is direct democracy and socialism. Building up our communities and making our society at large (and especially our cities) self-sustainable.

I personally think that an international human bill of rights would be a wonderful goal to have to kick off a golden age for humanity.

Capitalism exists in the form it does because government doesn't exist. It's a big lie. We are in the age of modern feudalism, ruled by corporations, oligarchs, and others that concentrate wealth, power, and influence.

I wouldn't trust the government to reliably redistribute the money or to reliably tax the very rich.

We have a system that rewards greed, parasitism, and exploitation with wild success. Until that is solved, redistributing wealth will be unsuccessful — a temporary fix, at best.

People will say a lot of things about me when I die, but I am determined that 'he died rich' will not be one of them

I'll just save time for my future self: He died complicit, supporting and enabling the system that creates inequality and blocks progress, and he directly stagnated technology by engaging in monopolistic practices.

Bill Gates quite obviously pays a lot for PR, and giving away wealth to those in need is obviously positive, but if he used his influence to call out Microsoft for using their technology/AI and infrastructure in war, called out the imperialism and destabilizing influence of the US empire, and so on; maybe I would have a more charitable forecast for his legacy.

I would be more than happy to be wrong and I hope I am.

The point is that they forked an older version of Gecko and have been maintaining it with a small team ever since - and it still works reasonably well.

Is its security great? At least in the past they made great efforts to keep up with CVEs, but they don't pump it full of money and talented individuals - so I'm doubtful that the security is great. Is it actively exploited? I doubt anybody would bother.

Am I endorsing Pale Moon? No, but it's still an impressive effort even if I disagree with a lot of their choices.

See how Elon Musk gets away with the nazi salute? People have been calling him a nazi for months. People have been boycotting his products. Despite losing so much, he seemingly revels in the attention. When it comes down to it, he vehemently denies the accusation and the show goes on. His power over others remains. He's rich as fuck, he can afford to weather any conventional storm we throw his way.

I'd rather spend my time and energy on more productive things. Like focusing people's energy towards removing the wealth inequalities that create and enable individuals like him. Nobody should have that much wealth and power over others. Nobody should be able to openly commit election fraud (pay people for votes).

It's not putting someone down to stick to the facts - the facts resonate with many people. Starlink, for example, is a monopoly. No single corporation should have a monopoly on satellite internet. If people focused on that, alongside his shady dealings with his other companies/products and the DOGE, things could move to a more productive direction.

Can we prove Elon Musk is a nazi? Is doing a salute, that has a shocking resemblance the nazi salute, even against the law in America in that context? It just seems like a waste of energy to focus on that. It's a label and nothing improves by pointing it out and condemning him.

I choose to not practice condemning others or otherwise putting them down. Fighting hate with hate usually results in more hate. That's my personal strategy, at least. Follow your heart, I say.

Thanks for making it clear that you aren't being hateful.

From my perspective, you don't need to parrot a line or respond to a barrage of questions.

Learning to be more sensitive and tolerant and actually changing takes time. It's a process. If you indeed aren't holding hate in your heart, it makes it all the easier to see the flip side.

Sorry. It's one word. That's literally ALL people want you to say to help them feel safe and comfortable. It doesn't need to be hard.

Should your private message have been published? No, probably not. It was unfair to you.

Are people being unfair to accuse you of being a massive transphobe with the evidence at hand? I'd say so, but people are primed against people that hint at their transphobia through the use of particular terms.

And why wouldn't they be? Individuals masking extreme hate towards transgender/etc. people with dogwhistles is something that happens frequently.

If you aren't masking hate just say so and apologize.

It's obvious to me that Nutomic and Dessalines both have gigantic hearts.

Anybody who promotes human rights and concepts like socialism are incredibly courageous.

Thank you for creating this platform. It's a critically needed service for discourse. I hope others reconsider their strong stances against you and Dessalines.

Lemmy is of incredible value to humanity and not a moment passes where I am not grateful for this platform and the hard work put into it. I'm sure many, many others feel similarly.

Can you please just apologize to those who were offended and promise to be more sensitive moving forward? That's the sure-fire way to defuse the allegations accusing you of being a transphobe and put everybody at ease.

Refraining to comment further on the topic is smart until you learn more about the dynamics at hand. Transgender individuals face an unprecedented amount of discrimination and vitriol.

If anything, the bourgeoisie are generally polarizing people against each other, particularly pitting people against others who are different or who are in vulnerable positions.

Still, doesn't change the gross hiring (and firing practices) of UX professionals. The field is being done away with, largely. The value they provided arguably exceeded value that even c-suite level executives provided to their company, yet usually these professionals have no stake in the company or seat at the table, unless they work at a start-up. Their value was exploited, and their reward is being fired while the company thrives.

Of course the talent shines through, but these individuals will have to vastly "up-skill" (perform new functions or skip their established practices instead potentially relying on AI) to be able to continue in product development.

Hiring managers do allude that some of these professionals will be moved to management or strategy positions, but the vast majority will be jobless if they can't adapt, if they already aren't jobless. Even with a masters in UX and/or many years of experience, it's very difficult to find a role.

AI hasn't outright replaced anyone in the field, but its effect on the workforce has been undeniable. Whether they are building a house of cards or not remains to be seen, but the people who have spent decades working in specialized UX roles will likely be the ones taking the hit in the end.

Will anybody be surprised that capitalism is further leaning into enshittification with the removal of these roles? No, I don't think anybody will be shocked.

They are desperately trying to replace skilled and creative individuals with AI, and I suspect workplaces that enforce or coerce the use of AI (particularly specialized AI products) are using the training data to enable this pursuit.

For example in the User Experience field (or what's left of it), the professionals are incredibly valuable to companies that had forsaken empathy and user-centered design in their processes — they filled a sorely needed gap in product development. And go figure, you need users to be able to smoothly use your product and want to engage with your services as easily as possible to make money. No wonder the ROI of employing UX professionals is so high.

Because some of the UX design processes can be replicated by AI though, I'd argue that the the field is largely being shifted in reaction to that advancement.

UX professionals are assured that their field isn't being replaced by AI — repeatedly and incessantly by hiring managers (who spent years bloating the field and watering down the value of UX).

UX professionals are just being shifted to taking even more responsibilites by ALSO being expected to do UI design. I'd say, in part, because AI can perform some of the surface level tasks UX professionals are known for. UX encompasses a lot more positions than design, such as being a researcher or writer. It's all important work.

But before long, hiring managers foreshadow that they want to completely do away with the UX/UI role and shift them to Product Development/Management.

How could one wear so many hats? Likely with the use of AI to accomplish their tasks. This shift will likely include the firing of a lot of individuals (which these corporations already have done for years — they suck UX professionals of all their value and then let them go).

I have debated hiring managers of large companies and they seem pretty determined to put the entire field out of work. A field that is of incredible value to humanity. They say because it's a "mature field" that has well-established design practices that others can tap into.

When pressed, these individuals claim that the field already doesn't even exist anymore, and that people should just move on.

Like it or not, we can shine a light and hope they see.

I am as libertarian (as opposed to authoritarian) as they come, and I still hope I (and others who share my sentiment) will be able to convince them the merits of a world with human rights, diplomacy, and freedom — that is not needlessly violent and forceful.

We can move past barbarism, but to do so we must define what comes next to those who have shut their hearts to the truth — especially to those who have spent arguably too much time reliving the horrific violence of the 20th century.

I don't need to boycott them, I don't feel the need to block them. Everybody is within their rights to do so though, but I will keep slowly trying to win them over to the idea of a more kind and free world.

Creating Lemmy and the fediverse is of incredible value to humanity. They provided a timely medicine to the internet — a decentralized platform that is not controlled by an American corporation and ruled by algorithms. I don't feel like it's a lost cause to do my best.

The best thing to prepare is to not be fearful and to not panic.

I suggest that everybody protest against factory farming and participate in boycotts. Call lawmakers and regulators to take direct action against these companies and their dangerous practices (and hold them responsible).

100%. I'm hopeful that with increased awareness more people will wake up to the reality at hand and take action. There has to be a breaking point where people finally realize they are being manipulated to be polarized, outraged, fearful, hateful, etc. by an uncaring apparatus that just wants to maintain the status quo (or whatever their particular agenda is) and steal their attention, largely.

Truly, thanks for your response - I understand now that it does seem to be one of the major factors that goes into their ranking.

I guess my problem is that I just feel like ranking press freedom is flawed when things are this fucked. Here in the US, whistleblowers are persecuted or killed, accurate and unbiased reporting of events feels like it almost never happens, omission of newsworthy events is rampant, an oligarch is directly controlling speech in their outlet, independent journalism is at the behest of a few corporations that have total control of the algorithms and the platforms that these journalists rely on, a couple corporations own the entirety of all mainstream media... I could go on, but I'd just be preaching to the choir in all likelihood.

I'm glad that the few (independent or otherwise) journalists aren't dying in droves here. They just get fired or silenced through various mechanisms if they report on anything that goes against the grain.

I am pretty sure their assessment of US press freedom is wrong. In my opinion, it should be ranked much lower than 57th. Perhaps their assessment is true when you consider the facts of the entire world situation, but media freedom and actual journalism feels pretty dead here.

It doesn't feel like they are accounting for the entire breadth facts at hand here when it comes to industry/capital/political pressure on media bias/accuracy and their combined effects on reporting (or the lack thereof).