sanity_is_maddening

I don’t like making generalisations…

But…

I agree.

There is absolutely an observable correlation there. And mentioning exceptions will only prove the rule.

Yup. It does, doesn’t it?

I know people with a lot of money to their name who buy second hand just to get around, and people with not much that end up with barely a scent to spare because they’re paying a loan to own a car they couldn’t really afford. Go figure.

“It takes a special type of person”- as you said.

Also, my comment wasn’t a dig at people for liking or enjoying cars at all. It’s about specific ones and how they’re being driven around… we see them around right?

It’s the same with motorcycles to.

The problem is never the vehicles themselves, obviously, it’s the idiots that get drawn to them and ruin what others might enjoy in them as well.

Thank you for pointing that out to me because I really missed that.

That does make blurring the license plate hilariously futile. Well, unless people need to go get their hears checked or cleaned like me.

Thanks again. You gave me something to laugh and something to worry about.

Cheers.

Why is it always the kind of person you think it’s gonna be? I mean, always. One can match the level of inconsiderable idiocy from car models alone.

Imagine knowing you’re wrong and persist and insist this much in continuing to do the wrong thing in front of everyone, so that everyone can behold the thing that everyone knows that is wrong for you to be doing, and you still continue to do the wrong thing that you know that everyone knows that you know that is wrong to do. No? Hurts your brain, doesn’t it?

Now… Why is his license plate blurred in the video? Does this level of inconsiderate behaviour deserve that level of consideration in return?

I’m not sure if the OP is trying to expose this article as an idiotic thing or not, but I can’t take this nothingness of an article seriously.

I’m 40 and I’m sure that I “gave” this supposed “stare” to both older and younger people several times this month alone. And we’re barely past midway through it.

Yes, it is smug and rude and most of the times uncalled for. But I don’t remember a time when this wasn’t around. I’ve given this look and received it since I’m able to remember existing. It’s not a generational feature, it’s not even a cultural one, as I’ve met people from all ages and places that do this my whole life.

And it’s not that the young are more rude, is that everyone is more rude now.

We all know that social exchanges took a turn for the worst since algorithmic social media really started to take off circa 2010, and it only got worse when everyone got locked with it as their only form of social exchange during covid lockdowns. This is not a GenZ problem, nor a U.S. problem, this is a problem for most people in most places now.

Blaming this on the young when they had no saying in establishing this mess and when they were obviously never in charge of any decisions that led us here is the typical nonsense to expect from the most idiotic reasoning of the establishment and legacy media.

“Oh, you know who we should blame for the shitty world we have? The people who were never in charge of anything and never had any saying in a single thing whatsoever. That’s who!!”

I’ve witnessed this nonsense too many times my entire life and I don’t know how people fall for something so easy to recognize as inconceivable. And not with just the youth. It’s always stupid to assign blame to the people with the least available agency in the room, or in the world.

And I hope you all catch it and stop it everytime someone is trying this nonsense in front of you.

This article deserves the very “stare” that is trying to attribute to GenZ. If they do indeed do it more than others, articles like this only re-enforce that they should keep doing it. Because it very much earns that reaction.

And how many people kept warning everyone of this and for how long?

I am a bit tired of the lack of foresight. In reactive vs proactive measures people only seem to understand reactive ones.

I’ve been telling people about the dangers of the lack of digital sovereignty, in relation to nations, communities and individuals for I don’t even know how long. As many many others have for even longer.

It’s as if one keeps telling someone to fix the fissures in the hull of their boat while on shore, but they only seem to understand what you mean when the boat is leaking through these same fissures at sea.

It’s only then that it starts to sink - pun very much intended.

By that point it’s too late. And the outcome might be a tragic one.

It’s the same with the environment.

It’s the same with their own health.

It’s the same with everything.

One doesn’t need to ponder about this for very long to pinpoint that this is because the absence of reference is what makes it harder to acknowledge it. Because one has a harder time understanding what one doesn’t have a frame of reference of, and then the subsequent dismissiveness ensues.

The great tragedy of all the proactive efforts is that when they are successful, something has been avoided, and therefore unseen.

We register rescue, not prevention.

And it’s only in the rescuing that the understanding of what could have been avoided starts to be perceived. Not everyone is like this, but most people seem to be.

But I don’t know how as one gets older, sees what might be a cliff ahead and finds only reasoning for a faint downslope.

And I no longer care to know if it is due to denial, laziness or ignorance anymore. Because I’m quite exhausted of this.

While I do share your deep frustration regarding how the attention scale tips a lot more for the frivolous in the face of calamity, I have to say the way you are commenting is just a good example of how to not communicate with others in behalf of a cause.

You could harness the enthusiasm of people for this cause and redirect their attention to other issues, by claiming that this is a good example in how we can indeed fight back against the many injustices that are reigned over us.

If you instead intend to belittle people into it, you’ll get nothing but what you are getting here, which is… well, you can see for yourself.

Not to mention that you might be successful in demotivating people even further.

I try to raise as much attention as I can to Permaculture and syntropy or the syntropic method, and try to promote movements such as Degrowth, Veganism, Zero Waste and I never shut up about Precision Fermentation. But there’s a reason why I don’t call myself an Environmentalist, a Vegan or a Zerowaster and so on… even though in practice I technically do practice all these things - well, not all, not Precision Fermentation because I don’t have the money or infrastructure to do it, otherwise I would, and that is why I probably can’t shut up about it. But I don’t use distinguishing labeling to describe myself that may generate a sense of otherness to others. There’s literally nothing different about me because I do or practice any single one of these things or all of them. Any person can choose to do any of them or all of them at any point, and the only obstacle might be that they didn’t have the knowledge as to how or they didn’t or don’t have time and support to learn it.

When fighting for the environment or fighting fascism (It’s literally the same fight against the capital influence that dictates these conditions because of the few that want to thrive at the cost of everything else), it needs to start with making people feel less alone in the face of it all, and then reaffirming their sense of belief that any difference that they can make is a difference worth making.

You’re doing quite the opposite here. And believe me when I tell you this. Because I am on your side. Even your feeling of anger and resentment is one I share when seeing the apathy and complacency in the people around me everyday. I just learned my lesson that the pessimistic attitude and outbursts got me nothing but alienation. And from time to time I still need someone to do the same for me as what I am doing here for you now, someone needs to snap me out of all the rage and loathing because it accomplishes exactly the opposite of what I want to happen in the world.

I apologise if my very long message feels condescending, or if it makes you feel like telling me to go fuck myself. If it does, remember this… I’m on your side. I really am.

Notice that my comment was meant as a compliment to him. And a dig to myself for not allowing the belief that this might just be a decent person. That was the joke. That we are almost all conditioned to have a pavlovian level of reaction towards politicians, in which they speak and we doubt them immediately.

I know two people that are members of political parties and they are genuinely two of the most decent people I know. But at the same time, they are not raising ranks within their respective parties. Which are also not the biggest parties to begin with. I don’t doubt that there are decent people that are trying to be decent politicians. I just think that the capital influence and its respective interests don’t usually allow these decent ones to reach actual positions of power and they even get actively placated as a result of their integrity hindering the consolidation of that very same capital influence.

What’s this?? A politician in a position of power taking a stand on a principle with integrity?? Especially these days?

How did he sneak in?

They’re usually not allowed in the establishment.

Hmm… Suddenly I can’t trust him anymore. That’s how fucked I am with the political class. Like, immediately it just pops “what’s his angle besides some PR glow?” - that’s where my mind goes instantly.

It’s exhausting…

I understand your tempered position. I really do.

But allow me to go on a bit of a rant here…

All the big tech companies in Silicon Valley have aways been heavily subsidised by the U.S. government without the U.S. taxpayers having any stakeholders’ position afterwards. These should have always been partially within the public owned infrastructure given how they were funded by the public. Amazon is probably the most ridiculous case in the world in how long they weren’t profitable and remained subsidised by the government to even be able to exist.

So, in regards if FOSS should be tax funded… yes. Because of the very reason I just mentioned. All big tech was and still is tax funded. With them taking even more money from people as costumers after already having taken money from them as taxpayers. While also just selling everyone entirely as a profile to get ad revenue from or as a surveilled citizen to serve on a platter to whichever government they want to influence further. This is insanely corrupt as a system. It should’ve not been allowed to even establish itself.

I think everyone who supports FOSS and open protocols is very aware of the pitfalls and uphill struggles to implement them against the current system. But I find that the general apathy and the further complacency of the general public is the true paramount adversity.

When you say “this is me being a realist”, it is you accepting the reality that was imposed onto you by the people who are benefitting from its’ imposition. Even more than the typical manufactured consent of capitalism, this is enforced submission to those rejecting the manufactured consent. Because from the rest of your comment, and the fact that you are here on Lemmy, you clearly do not consent to this reality, but you’ve accepted it as an inevitability. Which it isn’t, as we are not in the grounds of that reality having this exchange right now.

Taxpayers should fund FOSS and open protocol software because it protects them long term. One quick example would be how to this day nobody can close protocols on email and how anyone can create their email and host the server if they so desire. It obviously requires skill and knowledge, but if one has them, nobody can prevent them from doing it for themselves or even others if they so desire. This is an absolute insurance that the system can’t dictate one’s individual terms.

And while the Fediverse may be very small in comparison to the general establishment, it is large enough as proof to present anyone who doubts that there is a way to get back to the true promise of the internet and that we can indeed get back our sovereignty from the conglomerates that destroyed that promise.

And the political winds can change in whatever direction they may, it doesn’t matter, as it can’t and won’t destroy the resiliency of the concept. I just joined piefed.social after the Lemm.ee shutdown, and it doesn’t matter because this is a resilient concept. And that is also the reason it cannot be contained or controlled by anyone over anyone.

Sorry for the very long reply. I hope I wasn’t as annoying to you as I feel I am being. If so, I apologise even more.

Cheers.

deleted by creator

Oh, thanks. That is very good news.

In regards to Meredith Whittaker and Signal… If I remember correctly when I read that rumour, it was in regards of the push that the EU has going on for Message Apps to open their protocols.

Delta Chat for example, already has open protocols with emails. But there’s no allies joining in on the message app front.

As one would expect, Meta is fighting this with WhatsApp and Messenger. The fact they don’t connect both of these, with them being within the same company tells us all.

But I haven’t been following this as closely as I probably should. So don’t know if that Signal rumour is remotely true.

The EU push for it is true though. But if they’ll manage to enforce it is another conversation entirely.

Yeah, I think the same. But if they work towards federation, they’re at least on the right side of things. Unlike Meta, X and most of Silicon Valley.

Good. That means she actually cares enough to go for other possibilities. I’m also certain that there’s at least a portion of their supporters who would crucify her if she wasn’t also on Bluesky.

By the way, do you know if BlueSky is open to the idea of federation? As anyone heard if there’s interest in it?

I read somewhere here on Lemmy someone commenting that the CEO of Signal Meredith Whittaker was inclined to be a part of the push for open protocols as well. Don’t know if that is true though. Didn’t seek to verify it.

But I always want to know who does support the good fight for what the internet is supposed to be.

Yeah, I agree that with the people with larger numbers of followers there’s an inherent fear of losing relevance.

But surely there’s a sunk cost fallacy at play as well. Especially when I see no effort of these people to build a lateral following in alternative platforms. They can use that same volume of followers to platform the alternatives and pave the road for both themselves and others to find a viable way out. Without that effort in sight, I’m forced to question their intelligence or their intentions. Or both simultaneously.

Having said that, I still can’t justify the ones with no great following that decide to stay.

I know people probably think that they’re taking some level of “warrior keyboarding” right to the other side’s doorststep. All in behalf of raising awareness.

But…

these are not FOSS platforms with no algorithmic reinforcement for engagement. Precisely the opposite. So, all that people do is maximise engagement, and with that raise profit margins for the very people they’re trying to “take down”, and who can control what is visible and what isn’t from the get go.

If all these “nobodies” like myself decided to delete their accounts in these platforms and move on to the FOSS alternatives, and if we all continued to seek legislation to continue to open protocols online as the original promise of the internet that was taken from all of us, then people like Elizabeth May would have to leap as well, as the numbers that made them relevant would be gone elsewhere. And with that, these closed gated platforms with their shitty algorithms would be left in irrelevance with a user base akin to the size of something like TrueSocial. Given their current expenses they would be forced to downsize or file for bankruptcy.

This is the only way to fight conglomerates and their grip.

Doesn’t matter if it’s social platforms, digital services, supermarket chains, fast food giants etc etc

Boycotting accompanied by alternatives aligned with decentralisation and further legislation to insure sovereignty for everyone everywhere.

Absolutely.

I can’t fathom what the hell are the justifications that people will fabricate to keep themselves there. I mean, I understand what the Neo Nazis, incels, Maga and so on are doing there. But everyone else? It has to be morbid curiosity at this point, addiction to rage or something like that. Maybe they want to get acquainted with the new Grok AKA the self-named “Mecha-Hitler”… Urghh

I actually had a Mastodon account for a while, but I never got into the microblogging thing. It’s why I never liked Twitter either. Just isn’t my jam I suppose.

But I’ve started to notice some small companies and newspapers having the mastodon link on the bottom of their websites and that makes me glad to see it.

I’m not entirely clear as if you just meant that as a thought experiment… Because I wasn’t suggesting anything in that direction, actually. I was merely stating that the ratio of space required to grow food for the population in cities should match the vertical design of cities themselves. And even include these vertical farming structures within cities themselves. It all needs to match the design of efficiency in housing. Otherwise, it’s just a race to the bottom in how to run out of surface land and resources the fastest way.

Also, I want to mention that this idea that the entire lives of people would have to be dedicated entirely to farming has always been greatly exaggerated as to scare off people from procuring sovereignty for themselves and their communities. My girlfriend and I grow some of our food. I would say even if I took the task alone with the intention of feeding us both entirely all year round, it would take me about less then 2 months worth of work spread out across two seasons. That out of an entire year leaves a lot of time to spare. Not to mention, that I could use the same time to grow more for more people. After you put what you need in the ground, setting an automatic irrigation system, the maintenance work is not that much of a hassle, especially using the syntropic method within a permaculture design. The early stages of setting this up are laborious indeed, but after that, not really, not really at all.

This all to say that this is another one of those myths that capitalism has ingrained falsely in people as to keep the labour of the masses retained to the benefit of the few who gain the most from it. It’s about insuring the conditions where the elite can keep manufacturing the consent in others to exploit them. And insuring dependency is always the way to do it.

Farming wise, and regarding our current food systems, I think that people in general should learn more about syntropy if we are to communicate better as to what needs to be achieved. As it will mean different approaches depending on geography. Not to mention Urban vs rural settings would also require different approaches as well.

Then it would also be easier to gather support for innovations such as Precision Fermentation. Because using bacterial and microbial life to grow our sustenance is ingenious. The lower the trophic level we consume from, the lesser the destruction. And it would also be faster. Always.

If we truly insure true efficiency, we truly minimise destruction. And maximise the potential for prosperity for all, including non-human animals, plants and all other organisms.

Unfortunately the only efficiency that our current systems are designed for is to maximise profit. Which requires continuous growth, which is unsustainable and will ultimately lead to its own inevitable collapse. 6 of the 9 established planetary boundaries have already been breached. It’s only a matter of time now. As to how much time that will take and how much of the world will be taken with it, that is all tied to massive amounts of data for us to even fathom to process.

And AI is currently accelerating all this race to depletion in all fronts.

So, yeah, optimism right now, would be indeed for fools as you say.

I don’t think white nationalists mind being called white nationalists. The same for zionists or islamists. What these descriptors and the people who stand by them have in common is that they all share isolationism, supremacy and the disdain for otherness. These features are all intertwined and inseparable, like the three sides of a shitty triangle.

One can say being called one of those descriptors when one finds them wrong and disagreeable is obviously offensive to the person in question.

As for if it constitutes hate speech… it’s a mess. I’m not one to police language and speech.

As the defense of every hateful person is that they can just be ignorant. And how true that is. But how convenient as well.

Trying to legislate intention is impossible, and banning words is a terrible idea. And using the elusive concept of the status quo for a barometer of what is acceptable is also not a good idea at all. So… what are we left with? Allowing speech to fight back speech, basically. It’s far from perfect, but is the best we have.

But in this case, yes, this is just someone drumming up fear in the racist bias of a portion of the public.

As for if he is ignorant and believes the nonsense he speaks or doesn’t and is just mad that there’s an actual voice for the people to hinder and reduce the control of the elites, which include him and the moron tech bro brigade he’s a part of…

I would say the distinction is irrelevant.

But that’s just me.

I’m going to hinder the complexity that is required to properly answer your question, for the sake of brevity…

Islamist=zionist=supremacist

You can say that it’s the same product in different colours.

As to this case in particular… It’s a racist trying to call someone a racist to distract from the fact that this is a capitalist that doesn’t like a socialist, because power doesn’t concede and it hates sharing.

Mamdani is actually succeeding at connecting the elite class to all the societal issues in the population’s eye.

So… It’s time for whistling in the racists through the post 9/11 phobia. Which in New York… you can fill in the rest.

If someone wants to add more complexity to my very reductionist take, please do.

Thank you for beating me to it. I 100% agree with you.

But I have to say, in order to meet the nutrient density requirements, they would have to completely reform the agricultural sector. Which I would love, but we know how this goes with these people.

And the fact that in 2025, we keep stacking people on top of each other to the point that more than half of the world’s population is living like this in cities, which is integrated in a vertical axis, but the energy consumption of the same people is still spreading elsewhere on an horizontal axis… that is foreboding the worst of outcomes in this regard.

The permaculture philosophy and the syntropic method would have to be integrated. And with it, vertical indoor farming in cities as a necessary response. But this would mean the end of monocultures and pesticide use. No more plowing either. Terrible for the microorganisms in the soil, means terrible for everything else. Soil policy would have to be in place as a baseline… it’s a lot.

But I keep saying this… Environmentalism, veganism, sustainability and ethics are all the same thing. The very same thing. It’s trying to insure that our lives as both the individual and the mass population causes the least destruction and suffering as possible. And that we can aspire to be net positive to all biological life on the planet. If the general population understood this, we could be heading somewhere. Unfortunately without understanding entropy and how the trophic balance is achieved, I doubt that one can understand syntropy or what the hell I’m even talking about right now.

But yeah… Syntropy vs Entropy is hard to explain in a small paragraph to the ADHD crowd of our time, I guess.

So… Optimism is just not in the cards. Not for me at least.