I think I speak for most people when I say that I’m a good representative of the general population.

  • 4 Posts
  • 83 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 29th, 2020

help-circle
  • Christian@lemmy.mltoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlThoughts on the VP Debate
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I turned it on and was confused about why they were both speaking calmly and coherently. I thought this was a debate? Booooooring. I only turned it on to get an update on if they are still eating the dogs, but no one had the stones to pander to my special interest. This sucks, wouldn’t be caught dead watching the full thing.


  • If the DoJ replaced google.com with a similar scare screen, a message about the AI feature appearing before search results, and photos of CEO yachts, that might actually give me hope for the future.

    Maybe include a screenshot of the AI Overview so there’s no ambiguity about what feature was problematic. Something like this: google ai overview

    Tangent - I remember reading a blog post when oink got seized saying that if the guy behind it was trying to make a profit rather than to create a library he would be respected like another Steve Jobs rather than being imprisoned. I still 100% believe that.

    RIP oink’s pink palace, I was a member for only two or three years but it opened up the world to me. Got invited from a guy at my undergrad I never met in person or knew his name, there was a local filesharing network on campus with a few hundred students on it and we had similar music tastes so would im occasionally. Hope you are doing well wherever you are now, meowfaceman.













  • I have a bunch of habits I don’t like with how I respond to things said to me verbally.

    For the longest time I thought I had bad hearing, always asking people to repeat things. At some point in the past few years I actuality started introspecting and realized that most of the time I have answers prepared by the time they’re done repeating themselves. My hearing is fine, but I have abnormally poor language processing.

    Often I react to things by intentionally misinterpreting in an innocuous way, things like that. I never really liked it but pretended it wasn’t a thing. It’s a subconsciously developed strategy for buying time. Also why I handle talking one-on-one much better than groups, once two people start talking to each other I get too far behind the conversation and keep thinking of the things I would have liked to have chimed in with thirty seconds ago.



  • I had a few members tell me that I was part of the evil capitalist elite because I had a job.

    Definitely a joke, I’m having trouble imagining a person who could believe this in earnest, let alone enough to say it out loud. I’m even having trouble accepting that you can imagine that a person would say this with no sarcasm. No one actually believes that.

    edit: just realized that maybe you’re trying to be funny and I’m slow on the uptake


  • This essay resonates with me, thanks for sharing, the author makes her points pretty effectively. I’m not a historian and I don’t know shit, but I think even if I give the critics the concession that everything is absolute rubbish, I still think there’s no convincing argument that the beliefs are dishonest or malicious or not genuine.

    There’s so much bullshit and conflicting views about literally every historical event that I find it really hard to penetrate the context of the discussion and feel confident in anything, but I think the fact that I keep seeing people who hold “tankie” opinions dismissed as malicious propagandists pushes me very strongly towards feeling that the critics have not made any attempt to seriously engage with the ideas they’re fighting against.

    I think the realization I’m coming to now is that when part of your ideology is that people who claim belief in a specific conflicting worldview can be dismissed as bots or propagandists, finding out that those people aren’t manufactured makes it a lot harder to take everything else you’ve said seriously.

    On the other hand, the guy you’re replying to is correct that the author’s points fall completely flat and are ridiculous once you hunt down that specific paragraph and remove the context immediately before and after. Then it becomes obvious to an unbiased reader that the author actually ignored communist death tolls because it was inconvenient for her argument.