volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@wollman I don't disagree about the small room.

I would just say that with the controversy we have apparently left it up to those few people, who in theory are serving the market for listeners. And in practice, who knows what's really pushing their decisions.

So maybe they do focus on southern accents, trucks, and beer. Or maybe they are taking bribes to get music on the air.

But either way, I think that's the answer as far as I can see.

After the controversy we have decided that country music is whatever gets played on country music stations, for whatever reason it gets played.

@wollman After the Old Town Road controversy of 2018 it seems the operative definition is whatever self-described country music stations decide to play.

@nando161 and then experience even more cruelty in response.

So maybe don't.

@rowat_c I offer the comparison with the Luddites who feared advancement and are now seen as having been a bit goofy in their worries.

No, let's see where this goes and let's apply it to our needs.

The advancement is going to happen. The only question is whether we reap advantages or not.

@mavica_again but there is a difference: with other social media you had one organization responsible for that security, one organization setting policy, and one organization that could be sued if they broke whatever rules regarding privacy that there may be.

That makes a practical difference.

@183231bcb It strikes me that this is what the progressive bigot bubble tell each other about conservatives, when what I hear from actual conservatives is the opposite.

But one would have to listen to actual conservatives to realize that.

And those in that bubble seem not to want to leave to see what the real world is like beyond what their own bubble is telling them.

@axios Well right, because they're not book bans.

If they were actual book bans then the books would be inaccessible and readership wouldn't spike.

The consequence debunks the story.

@wjmaggos

So you're not interested in helping people? You just interested in government? That's as far as you want to talk?

You're happy to take away the resources that would invest in people so that you can diverted towards government because you're only interested in talking government, not people?

I'm interested in helping people. But you do you.

If your goal is to support the regime over people, I would say that is morally troubling and intellectually hollow, but that's just my opinion.

@freemo

@wjmaggos wow, seriously?

You honestly don't know about ways that people are invested in outside of government programs? You've never heard of such a thing? I can't believe you've not even experienced it for yourself.

You've never heard the concept that a person doing a job gets better at it? Learns a skill on the job? It doesn't occur to you that an employer would take the win-win situation of improving the employee so that the employee can do the job better to the benefit of the employer?

Have you ever heard of a person learning something off of, say, a YouTube video? A person learning something new from social media even?

You really can't think of a single way that a person is made better off if government is not directly involved?

If you're telling me that you really can't think of any improvement in a person's life outside of a government operation, then wow, you have been really falling for some industrial grade brainwashing by the state.

@freemo

@joeinwynnewood this is, well, more crying wolf.

I remember hearing all the things that Trump was supposedly going to do when he was elected the first time, that of course he didn't.

And now there's a new list of things that Trump is supposedly going to do if he's reelected, things that are not actually possible, that he's not going to do.

It's really hard to take such hysterical claims seriously, and that's why they don't gain ground among any audience that actually knows how government works.

You're being manipulated. People are telling you things that aren't true. They are playing on your emotions, and I wish you would not give them that power.

@wjmaggos

But you simultaneously promote policies that divert resources away from such investments.

It strikes me that your own proposals fly in the face of your own opinions.

Regardless of anything else, we don't even need to bring in any outside data, you think opening economies and investing in people help while you propose to tax away the very resources that would open economies and invest in people.

By your own standards your ideas fail.

@freemo

@wjmaggos you don't see how that doesn't make the point? @freemo

@kcarruthers sounds like you are in the position to make that point 🙂

@AnthonyFStevens

And there are also safeguards in the US system, and also people accuse these two of politicized rulings when it's hard to make that case.

And that's really my point.

There's so much personal mudslinging, and so little actual legal analysis to support the dramatic claims that float around.

@DavidBruchmann

@edwardchampion@universeodon.com sure, like I said, just a personal preference of mine.

@wjmaggos how?

So you promote this grand conspiracy theory, but fill in the blanks, exactly how does it work?

@freemo

@skaly Good luck to you and your family.

I'm just a stranger wishing you all the best.

@skaly If you're interested in sharing, whereabouts in the world are you, and whereabout does your family live?

(Obviously not looking for details, just curious as to which part of the country you're flying into. It sounds like an interesting story.)

@kcarruthers perhaps it's the greater distances to drive making it more likely that a person would want to have something to drink on the way?