gusgalarnyk

I'm saying you summarized incorrectly. I'm not accusing you of being too succinct, I'm accusing you of being wrong.

You refuse to argue the subject matter and rely on attacking the person. I'm not here to defend Cory, I don't know the person. I'm here to say your opinion is bad and I want other people to think about it because you clearly haven't. International copyright law is a tool nations use to make trade beneficial to both sides theoretically, yes? The US is in a trade war with its allies, which I'd like to point out is not supported by anyone qualified on the subject matter that I can find. So wouldn't it make sense for countries at war to reconsider all trade tools during a trade war? That seems like a pretty fuckin basic concept. Pretty related to the conversation wouldn't you say - copyright laws and trade wars?

Whether you or I agree or disagree with the approach, well that's interesting if a bit meaningless because I assume neither of us is an elected representative. But at least it's interesting. What would be a good tool for those under attack to use for the benefit of the most people? I'd like to know that. Maybe if I did I could advocate for it, or do more research and spread the knowledge, or generally better my own understanding of society.

Instead I'm arguing with you about whether or not a person should be allowed to have an opinion on a community built on peoples opinions. It's a stupid position to have when the content is value added. He has a platform because he writes and he writes enough that he's bound to get attention if his material is good enough and it happens to have been good enough multiple times. Idk why that makes you so upset. It feels small to try and pair down a person's success, however minor, to one single thing. Especially while ignoring their contributions. Again I repeat, you're a part of the problem instead of a part of the solution.

If you want more opinions posted from reputable sources fuckin post em. But you come off as condescending and wrong when you assume people aren't listening to voices "with experience" just because they engage with voices you disagree with. Most people are capable of taking in multiple sources and coming to the correct conclusion, including but not limited to weighing educated specialist opinions more than random blogger's opinions.

I love that you're seeing what you want to see here but I can promise you that I have no love for pop figures. That's again, a weird old person assumption. People should listen when experts talk. That doesn't mean they should ignore all other voices. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

That's a bad argument and frankly a shit take. An artist doesn't have to be have a formal degree to make food art, a journalist doesn't have to have a formal degree to do good investigative work, and no one needs to go to culinary school to post a good recipe they made. Your argument doesn't make sense on face value in numerous situations.

Qualification is primary source material is valuable. I want to know the doctors who run clinical trials are qualified, registered, and in good standing. I want that data published from a reputable source but not necessarily a qualified one. And I want people who are good at explaining data, with a rational perspective, to explain that data in every medium they can. Distributing, digesting, repackaging, and resynthesizing facts do not require qualification and can still provide benefit.

Doubly so when conversing about a topic, writing philosophy, or debating a political stance. I don't need every 9-5 worker to be qualified in a subject matter when talking to them about it, I just need them to be rational. Starting that conversation and formulating opinions is what I enjoy about Cory's work. I do not need a PhD or a government official to do that. If someone has thoughts worth considering, if they communicate them in an agreeable manner, and if they do so in a public space correct for that conversation then they provide value regardless of their qualifications.

I think your deduction as to why we're in the shape we're in in the US is poorly formed. People didn't just wake up one day and decide to get their news from the clown network and then they voted in a clown. People who wanted more power and control deregulated industries, moved money out of communities, worsened public education, monopolized the media, monopolized industry, and stoked fear until people wanted any change and promise of safety regardless of who gave it.

I think what you're doing now, trying to silence positive educated voices on the Internet, enables those bad people to continue their evil work. Because it cost other people like myself time to respond to this bad opinion that could have done harm if supported by enough people. Gatekeepers and authority are not the deciders of what is valuable and what isn't.

Could you engage with the content instead of being upset that a person is prolific? I personally have enjoyed everything I've read from this person. I'm not claiming they're an expert, I'm claiming I like their perspective even if I don't always agree with it. That's exactly the kind of material I want to see on Lemmy.

This is the best. People need to hear this more. 6 weeks is feasible and done today in some countries. Even then, we can afford to do more.

When people phrase it like this I think they help others understand it isn't a wish it's a reality in parts of the world and therefore it can be a reality in theirs. It also tells people that 6 isn't the target, more is the target. We shouldn't be striving for infinite stock prices we should be striving for infinite time off. Automation, freedom, self-sufficiency.

32 hour work week, 8 weeks of vacation, more money, more healthcare, more public transit. We can afford it all. Tax the rich, break up monopolies, unionize, and build bridges and ladders - make a better community!

Wealth disparity is the number one enemy of the modern world. Every millionaire with a net worth over X is a threat to democracy and actively reduces our chances of maintaining a democracy. I think I remembering hearing X being 10 million from a scientist researching this thing, but even if you bump it up to 20 or 50 million - still insane piles of wealth - removing the rest via taxation would change the world for the better overnight.

Break up monopolies and tax the rich out of existence, that should be the platform of every party, the single policy that we should strive to complete this year, before it's too late. The US is what too late looks like, this is all a consequence of allowing the Uber wealthy to continuously drain the network of the bottom 99% of people.

Ugh, please, I would do anything to work less and create more. I'm making the furniture for our flat, I would do that faster. I am making my own TTRPG, I just started on a TCG cause I think the tools for making them yourself are in a good place (and I've literally always dreamed of making one), and I like to write short stories - I'd definitely do more of that.

Got a big steam backlog, that'd be nice. I'd workout more everyday. Idk, work is a means to an end and the moment I can make that more efficient I will.

Having consumed most sides of this "controversy" I don't understand how the top comment on this topic can be negative towards LTT. Based on the updoots this community seems way more interested in bashing LTT than being the generic LTT community on Lemmy. I would think a generic community would be more objective and rational.

This honey controversy seems silly and overblown, it's clear to me that gamers Nexus has a bone to pick, Rossman seems like he's got personal issues as well, and LTT seems to have responded rationally based on what they discussed in the last two or three WAN shows.

I'm not really interested in defending millionaires or taking sides in YouTube drama that is sooo meaningless. I am, however, interested in being a part of an LTT community that is level headed. I guess until moderators take action I'll just put notes on people and see if they have reoccurring themes in the future and comment on the issue again at a later time.

That has really been my favorite Lemmy feature to date.

I made this decision about a year and a half ago and moved to Germany. Lgbtq are welcome here as much as they are in the US.

Moving out of America to a county with worker rights is like time traveling into the future.

I'm in Germany and people rave about their bread but I live in Mannheim and it's like... Okay? I don't have a bakery here that I like more than the ones in New York (specifically) or France (seemingly anywhere) or Vietnam or Japan.

Maybe it's because I haven't found how to use them properly but there just doesn't seem to be a large amount of diversity. Like I'd expect fresh made hamburger buns, the Bahn mi bread, like a good sub situation, fresh rye bread, idk. Also for a country to have good bread I need to be able to walk into any corner bakery and be satisfied 4/5 times.

These are some of my favorite contributions to social networks. Thank you for taking the time.

The keyword is viewpoint. The inherent problem with conservatism across the globe, but obviously in the US, is the "viewpoint" is anti-science, anti-common-sense, and at worst disconnected from their policies.

I think there's a place on social media for people who believe tariffs could, over time and at great expense, bring manufacturing home and that some viewpoints want that. That's a viewpoint to debate. I do not think there's a place for people to deny climate change, there is no debate to be had there.

I think there's a place for people who want to discuss immigration policies and how best to balance the need for immigrants, the want for immigrants, the assimilation of immigrants, and the quantity/quality of immigrants. There's system design to be had there. I do not think there's a place for hate speech and dehumanization of immigrants as if they're bad people (or when they're used as political weapons like "caravans" in the US or "Sharia law").

It doesn't matter if conservatives agree with fixing healthcare or being against the rich, their politicians are only interested in using those as talking points because their allegiance is to their biggest donors which is big healthcare and the rich.

Conservatives across the globe, from everything I've seen in my admittedly short lifetime, are either anti-science/progress, pro-hate and emotionbaiting, or obvious liars.

In the US there is no Republican AOC or Bernie Sanders at the national level - who obviously and vocally are fighting for the workers. In Germany (where I am now) it's the conservative AFD party that is a neo-nazi party and it's the conservative CDU party that flirts with giving them partial power just to maintain their own power. Side tangent, it's the libertarian (read conservative-lite) FD party that sabotaged the left leaning coalition just last year.

The people that flirt with destruction and societal regression are the conservatives, so it's important that if they are allowed on any platform that their viewpoints are moderated. At least until they can stop flirting with fascism and lethal policies like remigration.

Remember and talk about with your neighbors and colleagues that this is who the afd associate with. This is what they are and what they want. Do not fall as my country currently is.