.

.

.

Not really. It’s pretty good. Growth will just bring more bot wars. But I guess bot-immigration is just a permanent trait of the internet now.

As long as the jackass doesn’t sell, they’re solid.

I had a roommate who invested, when his stuff went down more than 5% he’d sell it, “Don’t wanna be too risky,” he’d say, unaware that he was breaking the cardinal rule of investing…

Then, “Omg it’s up again, I better buy high before it goes higher!” then repeat pattern A again.

Moral of the story, if you actually believe in a stock, unrealized losses are not something to react to. Or do, and become a warning tale told to others, ha. Them -5% hits add up QUICK.

So cool.

It would be more accurate if you said, “This is not about right and wrong (for me).”

If you say it’s not about right and wrong, dead stop, then you are pledging full faith to the institutions, the very ones we are critiquing.

Basically, you are dismissing my opinion as misguided, dismissing me as missing the point and I am telling you it was expressed exactly as intended.

In short, you are arguing on the wrong conceptual meta-level for me to respond without dismissing my own claim. If I take as True that “this isn’t about right and wrong” (it is), then I am setting aside the power I have in a democratic society to say, “Fuck this I’m changing it.” Maybe we’ve just been stuck in gridlock politics, with a ruling class that strips and monetizes every aspect of humanity that the society today doesn’t realize the power citizens wield.

Not sure. Been fun to think and share thoughts with you though. Thanks for your time and have a nice night.

An impasse is a perfectly acceptable outcome on a sane platform like Lemmy.

It’s a quote of an opinion, so in general I ignore them. I’m usually more interested in distilling ideas constructed with some line of reasoning.

But I guess we can look at this one. Find it’s essence. Tho it doesn’t seem very deep…

“Societies with rule of law are dictatorships. How leaders are selected and the existence of fundamental Constitutional rights is not a factor.”

So in short.

Having laws at all is a dictatorship.

Yeah, that is one of the opinions I’d ignore. It’s easy to have that opinion inside the walls of a lawed society.

Luckily it is valid to respond to an opinion with an opinion, and mine is that I imagine everyone (except the strongest with the most resources) would abandon that perspective as soon as they lived in a world with no laws.

I had nothing to say to that. I agree with it.

One paragraph discusses action, the other discusses philosophy. I only took issue with your regressive philosophy. I’m open to correcting misunderstandings, elaborate if you feel I continue to miss something.

“No one should stand up for new rights. Don’t rock the boat bro.”

Your mindset is the road to a dictatorship.

What does the Mafia do? Show up, “Wow you got a lot of valuable things here Be a shame if someone broke them. Best listen to us.”

The Mafia leverages potential of damage to existing value to extract cooperation.

I see very little difference here between the Mafia and the plaintiff.

“Because what is legal is always right.
And what is right is always legal.”

No?

In a fascist state, your mindset is welcome, “Well they broke the rule, they must pay,” but do you never abstract one more level? Is the rule itself breaking something?

Those who downvote you say yes. Nuance is important. The rule has two main affects that I see.

1. Direct effect (the goal) :Publishers maintain a monopoly on bookselling low value books, the structure of their business preventing any competition.

Okay lets think about #1. Is that good or bad?

2. Indirect effect : the members of that society now have a restricted access to knowledge.

Okay lets think about #2. Is that good or bad?

Being critical in thought enough to recognize the flaws of the first quote is key.

Be grateful to be a slave. A slave is alive. You could be dead. Remember that you exist to create labor but it is someone else’s job to claim the value of that labor.

Sorry, you were born into the wrong family, now please accept the status quo and do not revolt, rebel, or look into history and how the lower classes have handled power imbalances in the past.

Oh I know, I just wanted a copy too.

Deleting posts from the user PoV was the only way I could come up with to force the API to show them to me.

This is similar to when I heard reddit was doing the API lockdown, I wrote an automation bot over the weekend that self-destructed my subreddit and the entire post history. The bot also automatically downloaded and archived all of the content on my local machine.

It was annoying because at first I couldn’t get access to older posts since at the time reddit had changed their API to only show the first X posts (100 or 1,000 or whatever). So I told my bot to delete the posts as it archived them so as I deleted content, reddit had no choice but to populate the page with the older posts.

And that’s how I archived my subreddit. Reddit banned me two days later for automation, lol. I did not break any of the reddit or reddit api ToS during this process but I guess I upset someone.

Oh sorry, I didn’t mean that to come off as an accusation.

Heck no, but conflating two arguments at the same time makes them both unsolvable. I just approach one topic at a time. I’m very much anti-gov-spying. It’s fourth amendment stuff.

But I think the constitution is more of a talking point than something American politicians care about these days. They like to use it to say, “Do the thing I like! But wait, stop using it to stop me from stopping the things I don’t like!”

It’s corruption all the way down.

I’m 100% not an expert on this, I’m actually stupid, so know that before you read what I write.

As much as I get what you are saying, the United States has continually expanded the rights of corporations to essentially be… people. So on that they seem to have some legal standing? But then we factor in national security interests, and those override everything.

Without the national security interests I’d be curious which way this would go, but I don’t expect, “I deserve to spy on your citizens because I have free speech,” to fly…

So in a way I agree with you and in other ways I disagree with you, in the end… I said nothing, but I did say I am stupid at the top, so really it’s your fault for continuing to read this far.

At the very least it’s gonna be interesting. I doubt it will spark any introspection for politicians to think, “Hm, maybe we shouldn’t have given corporations more rights than people…” Nope. Poison the waters. Contaminate the soil. Torture the animals. Burn the sky. Cook all of humanity.

But hey, line go up.

Fair critique, he is known for being verbose, I suppose his audience likes that though? Shows us the value of editors :)

Did he makes the youtube thing a men’s rights issue? I don’t understand, I only had time to watch the first half of the video so far. I’ll check out the rest later.

Ah, he’s emotional. People shouldn’t be outwardly emotional, especially men. Otherwise I can’t absorb the content of their message. /s

Joke aside, did you have a point? One could alternatively say that he’s passionate about the fights he chooses. Should we not all aspire to be passionate about the fights we choose?

I suppose I’m not making the connection with what this comment has to do with the content of the video. At which timestamp do you feel he was emotional and how do you feel it effected the overall message?