volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@GW@newsie.social Well because even if we go with your premise, occupation without invitation is absolutely not the same thing as wiping them off the face of the earth.

Those histrionics don't do anybody any good. It just means that anyone paying attention will ignore such a position as clearly sensationalized.

@rowat_c I have no idea what you're on about.

You miss frame something I said as ad hominem, whether through your own misunderstanding of what I said or your misunderstanding of what an ad hominem is, I'm actually not sure, but apparently you enjoyed that?

Anyway, no I adopted your own description of Luddites. They were wrong, though, as your own description of what they believed didn't pan out.

I agree with you about what they thought. Just as I would agree with you, probably, about what flat earthers believe.

But in both cases they were simply wrong.

@DavidBruchmann but Roe v Wade had already been overturned by Casey long ago.

And again this is the issue of focusing on judges instead of focusing on reasoning.

It's extremely telling that you didn't mention anything about actual arguments, actual logic, and just said something about what judges might do.

That is crucial.

@AnthonyFStevens

@wjmaggos you say you are not against these things while promoting policies that are against these things.

Yes you think it's crazy that other people don't agree with you. Well maybe if you understood other perspectives then you wouldn't think it's so crazy. But you seem very myopic in your understanding of the world.

@freemo

Personally, I'd say focus on people.

@wjmaggos is proposing actions that harm people.

I don't care about whether that makes government better or worse, I care about the people who are impacted by those bad decisions.

@freemo

@GW@newsie.social Well that's not true.

Israel's goal is not to eliminate Palestine from the face of the earth, or else they would have done it. They have the ability to do it. If they wanted to they would have.

It's just foolish to buy into that propaganda.

@rowat_c what ad hominem?

@wollman Oh well the reason I keep talking about the controversy around Old Town Road is to highlight that the definition was handed over to broadcasters because other potential authorities just wanted to avoid the drama, wanted to avoid the controversy.

It doesn't have anything particularly rational beyond that. Regardless of what the listenership actually did, those authorities just ducked the question because they didn't want to face the flack again, they just found someone else--anyone else--to make the definition for them.

@rowat_c Oh we definitely benefit from internal combustion engines regardless of road signs and governance.

Really you're more referring to the benefit of the public road, not the benefit of the internal combustion engine.

The government makes the road so it can make the rules to govern its own roads. It's a completely different matter.

@wjmaggos

Would you agree that buying a milling machine means that a worker would be able to operate that machine to make parts to earn a living?

And without that machine the worker would face poverty as he is unable to make the parts to earn the living?

Well, how do you buy the milling machine? You concentrate wealth to place the order for the machine.

In the real world wealth concentration is part of alleviating poverty.

@freemo

@rowat_c Oh it's not bait.

I think it's clear that the Luddites were wrong in the end, and it's funny that where I'm from that's the general consensus. It wasn't even until recently that I realized there was a difference of opinion on that.

It's like coming across actual flat earthers.

Luddites were afraid of technological advancement being bad for humanity, and we've seen that it instead was a tremendous boon for humanity. They were on the wrong side with their shortsighted viewpoints.

@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