Veraticus
@Veraticus@lib.lgbt
- Comment on Why google son't sells products instead of killing them? 1 year ago:
What
- Comment on Remember when NFTs sold for millions of dollars? 95% of the digital collectibles are now probably worthless. 1 year ago:
Out of the top collections, the most common price for an NFT is now $5-$10.
Still overpriced!
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 1 year ago:
Exactly.
- Comment on Why wasn't former President Bush of the USA, charged with any crimes, when we marched into Afghanistan and Iraq by his orders, under pretenses? 1 year ago:
Probably he should be.
The US wields a huge amount of influence generally in the world, and specifically in the Hague. Behavior that would get other leaders called to task is generally ignored if it’s done by the US.
It’s not fair, but it is the way that the world works.
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 1 year ago:
Yeah he does confront his guests (though not any of the alt-right or qanon ones). It’s pretty clear he has an agenda, despite everyone claiming he’s just some kind of enlightened centrist.
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 1 year ago:
In what sense would their numbers make Rogan’s any better?
You didn’t really think about this whataboutism moment too hard, did you.
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 1 year ago:
That’s not true. You want to imagine he’s centrist because it gratifies your ego, but he is simply right-wing.
As are the people who he appeals to.
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 1 year ago:
I don’t know what the connotations of him are in East Asia. I think the question might be geographically biased against a good answer from most English speakers.
We can tell you what he means over here (and many people are in these replies), but that might be very different from his meaning over there, so keep that in mind.
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 1 year ago:
I don’t think he’s separable from qanon or the alt-right. Enabling them to the extent he does means he’s one of them tacitly, if not officially.
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 1 year ago:
“Censorship?” Does everyone deserve to get on his talk show? Are those that aren’t “censored?”
No. He has to draw the line somewhere, and he has. Where he’s drawn it – who he invites to speak to his enormous audience – is very instructive indeed.
By looking at all the alt-right, conservative, and qanon guests he invites on his show, we can tell who Joe Rogan is: a useful idiot for the alt-right, if not an enthusiastic enabler of them. And he is as bad at interviewing guests as he is at selecting them. He lobs dangerous, loaded questions at the worst people in the world, fails to challenge even the most basic errors they make with their answers, and idiots lap it up because they want to imagine they’re smart.
If he was alive a hundred years ago, he’d been enthusiastically debating the Jewish question and “free speech” people around the globe would be nodding sagely and being happy someone is finally willing to stand up against “censorship” and “international Jewry.” Because he’s alive now, he’s just doing that about vaccines, racism, trans people, police violence… basically anything where it’s possible to have a bad take, he’s interviewing someone about it.
- Comment on it's weird that we are prepared to die for democracy, yet willingly enter dictatorships daily for work and spend the majority of our waking lives with people we vaguely know 1 year ago:
I mean that’s the difference right there, right? If you quit your job, you’re homeless. If you don’t pay taxes, you’re arrested.
- Comment on it's weird that we are prepared to die for democracy, yet willingly enter dictatorships daily for work and spend the majority of our waking lives with people we vaguely know 1 year ago:
I get this sucks but you can quit your job and walk away from your employer, theoretically.
If the government decides to separate you from your possessions, your freedom, or your life, you can’t walk away from it and find a new government.
Your boss and your government are just totally different.
- Comment on [HN] Dating app Grindr loses nearly half its staff after trying to force RTO 1 year ago:
I love the straights report it as a dating app.
- Comment on it's weird that we are prepared to die for democracy, yet willingly enter dictatorships daily for work and spend the majority of our waking lives with people we vaguely know 1 year ago:
I don’t think most people would consider this slowly killing you, except in the most metaphorical sense.
- Comment on it's weird that we are prepared to die for democracy, yet willingly enter dictatorships daily for work and spend the majority of our waking lives with people we vaguely know 1 year ago:
This is true. On the other hand, it is the government’s job to uncover and persecute this. Obviously it could do a better job of it, but OSHA and the EPA actually do police employers for exactly these sorts of violations.
- Comment on it's weird that we are prepared to die for democracy, yet willingly enter dictatorships daily for work and spend the majority of our waking lives with people we vaguely know 1 year ago:
If you think your boss can just murder you I’m not sure what to tell you.
- Comment on it's weird that we are prepared to die for democracy, yet willingly enter dictatorships daily for work and spend the majority of our waking lives with people we vaguely know 1 year ago:
The power a government has over you, and the power your employer has over you, are totally different.
The government is legally authorized to separate you from your possessions, your freedom, and even your life in extremis. Your boss can’t do any of that and if they try the government should stop them.
Some people believe democracy is what prevents the government from punishing you capriciously, or allowing corporations to just do whatever they want to you. So they are willing to die to defend it.
I would say traditional liberal ideals are closer to what they’d want to defend than democracy itself, and I don’t 100% agree in either case, but I can see the point of view.
- Comment on What are your favorite Lemmy instances? 1 year ago:
Mine!
- Comment on [VERGE] How to watch the first Republican presidential debate 1 year ago:
With whiskey I assume?
- Comment on [TECHCRUNCH] A bitcoin spot ETF could open the floodgates for wider crypto demand 1 year ago:
Blech
- Comment on [VERGE] Microsoft will let you uninstall more built-in Windows 11 apps soon for less bloat 1 year ago:
Rather than upgrade to 11 I just went to Linux. Now I can uninstall all the apps I want.
- Comment on [HN] More Than 40% of Japanese Women May Never Have Children 1 year ago:
Good for them if that’s what they want.
- Comment on White House unveils ban on US investment in Chinese tech sectors 1 year ago:
Probably a good move honestly.
- Comment on Zachary Levi Says ‘Shazam! Fury of the Gods’ Critics Rating Was “Oddly and Perplexingly Low” 1 year ago:
Do my views need to perfectly align with every single one of those?
No, definitely not.
When does it become not okay to follow someone?
When their objectionable opinions are pointed out to you and you seem to be basically okay with it. For example, not unfollowing the person, not stating your disagreement with said objectionable opinions, or offering why you think whatever they posted does not actually contain said objectionable opinion.
I follow several online accounts and politicians specifically because I disagree with the content they post.
On Twitter, a follow is viewed as a passive endorsement that you like someone’s content and want to see more of it. You can disagree with this but I think that’s fighting an uphill battle. I mean, it’s 2023, Twitter is two decades old, and as far as I know this cultural more has been true for most of that time.
You don’t have to follow people to see their content, after all. It is a positive act which does mean something, and I’ve described what it typically means in the vocabulary of the Internet.
- Comment on Zachary Levi Says ‘Shazam! Fury of the Gods’ Critics Rating Was “Oddly and Perplexingly Low” 1 year ago:
Are people simply not supposed to use the things you do as evidence of the person you are?
- Comment on Zachary Levi Says ‘Shazam! Fury of the Gods’ Critics Rating Was “Oddly and Perplexingly Low” 1 year ago:
I think it’s a constellation sort of thing. The individual data points form a line that is very troubling. If it were merely “I hate Pfizer” and he had good reasons for it like “HIV medication in Africa is just too costly” that’d be one thing. But the silence, combined with the other troubling stuff? Not sure why we should blindly assume good faith given what we can see.
- Comment on Zachary Levi Says ‘Shazam! Fury of the Gods’ Critics Rating Was “Oddly and Perplexingly Low” 1 year ago:
Those links are just the tip of the iceberg!
As the Daily Beast reports, he also went on Joe Rogan, expressed admiration for Jordan Peterson, and blithely allowed Rogan to misgender Elliot Page with no pushback, and gave an interview to notorious transphone and general hateful bigot Pat Robertson on the 700 Club.
It’s not like he’s ever denied anything asserted by any of these articles. A Tweet like “I love vaccines!” or “trans rights are human rights!” would clear this up pretty fast. Yet, silence.
So… after some point, if it looks like an anti-vaxxing bigot, swims like an anti-vaxxing bigot, and quacks like an anti-vaxxing bigot… isn’t it just an anti-vaxxing bigot?
- Comment on Unpacking Google’s new “dangerous” Web-Environment-Integrity specification 1 year ago:
Yeah it’s truly awful.
The worst part is how disingenuous it is. It clearly exists because Google:
- Wants to circumvent ad-blockers since ads are its primary business model, and
- Link butts in chairs more closely to web browsers so they can sell better advertisement targeting.
If they just said they were doing it because they’re an advertising company and they need better ads targeted to people, at least they would have the benefit of honesty. And in that case you might actually get some big sites on-board; like if a site can explicitly say “I need to recoup hosting fees and the only way for me to do that is targeted advertising and that makes this easier/better” there’s actually a value proposition there.
But don’t pretend this is for the benefit of consumers or the Internet overall, and definitely don’t cloak your meaning behind vague platitudes about identity authenticity.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 year ago:
What the fuck
- Comment on How's the "Barbie" movie? [SPOILERS] 1 year ago:
I found it shockingly good. I was not expecting much but it wound up being fun, heartfelt, and politically relevant. Also it was chock full of both zaniness and very hot people so was a pleasure to watch. The humor was on-point, and I think a movie that takes women’s concerns and viewpoints seriously is quite welcome.
I would say its primary failing for me was on pacing. Some sections seemed to drag quite a bit longer than others. But I might revise my opinion of that on a rewatch.
Oh, also it did feel like an advertisement in parts. But, well… what can you do.