influencers are either spreading propaganda or trying to sell a product. its literally in the name: they influence. pretty disgusting how normalized it is
I think OP’s point is, even “influencers for all kinds of niches” are still… trying to either sell you something or pushing some version of propaganda. It’s the same across all industries and social medias. Opening Twitter and accidentally scrolling through “For You” feed kinda shows how awful tech influencers are as well.
But how is it different than someone writing a blog post, a book or giving a talk? If someone is just sharing their opinions it doesn't mean they are trying to sell you something or spread propaganda.
It is not, they are still under the general term of “influencer”. It also depends on the person who is writing a blog or a book. “Do they have any sort of financial interest at sharing this opinion?” usually covers most of the cases.
this doomerism is insane. look at the 20th century and what happend, yet we made it through. and you have some people thinking somehow life is worse and its actually going downhill? life is better than it has ever been. the only way humanity will not make it is if doomers keep pushing their dumb worldview and treating it as fact that the world is worse than its ever been, thus refusing to fix any problems. maybe go read a history book
not really. just because Qualcomm is pursuing RISC-V doesn't mean their customer service isn't absolute dogshit, which is what geohot was talking about.
no I won't eat less meat. another classic case of shifting the blame onto the individual instead of the hugely inefficient and wasteful processes and industries; its just carbon footprint BS 2.0. shaming people into believing their habits are causing apparently world-ending apocalyptic events isn't a good way to get people on your side, nor is it a good way to actually try and solve issues. it just makes people feel worse like the world is ending (it really isnt). doomerism is a disease.
> First, the argument that electric vehicles are more expensive than comparable combustion cars is somewhat exaggerated. The issue large stems from the decision to electrify only the most profitable and physically largest models. For Ford, that would be the F-150 Lightning and the Mustang Mach-E.
so the argument is correct, in that they are more expensive? so they should make cheaper, smaller electric cars would be the logical next step. electric cars at this point are a luxury item, and saying people cant afford luxury items because they aren't being paid enough is _technically true_ but that is misleading.
maybe they should start blaming poor fiscal policy of the federal government given the govt is meant to look after its people, not automanufacturers.
It allows for even more targeted phishing/scams and lowers the bar of entry required to do this and the difficulty of doing this at scale. the human element is a pretty common entry point.
when making fun of a man's penis size for whatever reason becomes normalized, it isn't surprising body dysmorphia becomes more prevalent. double standards galore. mens issues just don't matter.
I dunno about you, but the only people who have ever made fun of my penis were other men, and every woman I've known who called herself a feminist cared about men's issues. I first learned about the inequities in child custody impacting men from one.
This isn't a "double standard," it's what feminists have been saying for a long time, that these rigid gender roles hurt everyone (though women in particular do bear the brunt of it).
You've really never heard a woman say men with big trucks are "compensating for something" or any other put-downs related to penis size for perceived macho or overtly masculine behavior?
Here, I'll give you a segment of a Netflix special where a woman makes fun of a past boyfriend with a micropenis, does that count? Some of the audience laughs but it doesn't kill TBF. Starts at the 2 minute mark.
Oh I've heard song lyrics and standup jokes and lines in movies and TV shows, sure. I was talking about my personal experience. (I did laugh at the Ali Wong joke, but I won't go to bat for it or anything, it is a joke about stereotypes and insecurity. And the follow up jokes didn't land for me because they got mean.)
I'm sure I've heard men and women make "compensating" jokes, I don't remember any particular instances and have no idea about the proportion.
Experiences will differ, but I think it's a mistake to attribute the policing of masculinity to women primarily. I'm sure there is far too much of that, but a lot of it (in my personal experience, most) comes from other men, and at any rate blaming women is unproductive. The culprit is suffocatingly rigid ideas about gender, and it's a problem for all of us.
TBH its funny when people bring up american propaganda anyway. US media outlets are so overly critical of america, to the point it borders on anti-american propaganda
do you think the same for fish tanks? that when kids see fish tanks they think its OK to capture animals for their own amusement? What an insanely biased POV. zoos are fantastic for conservation and giving kids a view into a world beyond the one in which they live day-to-day.
What makes you think that fish are in ANY way different than land animals or even humans? Why should they not suffer from being captured and not being able to live freely in their natural habitat?
In what way is my POV biased? What you describe is a purely egoistic attitude. Ask the question: Who does this serve?
Your answer might be: primarily the animals (this includes fish). But this is not true, as the only reason we would have to conserve any species in the first place is because we humans (almost) drove them to extinction by e.g. killing them for profit (e.g. leather, ivory, etc.), burning their habitat for animal feed (which happens when you eat land animal meat) or by overfishing (which happens when you eat fish). Either way, the reason is not valid because the root cause is driven by human behavior, which almost all people causing it could change it in an instant - but they choose not to. Why? Because their pleasure is more important than non-human animals' lives.
Hence, the answer is: the humans who pay for it. It only serves the entertainment of humans at the cost of the (non-human) animals.
Kids visiting a zoo for sure don't consciously think "its OK to capture animals for amusement", but they get subconsciously conditioned by the fact that it is portrayed as "normal".
My guess is that you never researched about how zoos work. If you did, I promise you will be shocked what happens behind the scenes in order to "give kids a view into a world beyond the one in which they live day-to-day".
Your worldview is very very very narrow. The reality is that kids who don't visit zoos, or farms grow up not caring at all about animals. Because to them animals aren't "real", they are these distant things that have nothing to do with them.
On the other hand when they see conservation status "threatened" on the sign by the animal they wonder about it.
And there's nothing wrong with putting an animal is a zoo - you are correct, they don't behave the same. But that doesn't make it wrong. Animals are not trophies to be displayed in the wild and always to be some distant unknowable thing.
Instead animals and humans share the same planet and we should encounter them up close, and experience them, and zoo's are how you do it.
You are relegating animals to these "things" that no one ever sees or hears about - or cares about.
My world view would be classified as "ethical", because I take the feelings and desires of others into account and don't put myself before them - which you, on the other hand, don't. And this is the exact same reason why humans exploit animals in every possible way imaginable, reasoning with all kinds if "pseudo-arguments" that don't hold up a logical and ethical consistency check.
"Because they are animals" is not an argument. The singular fact that you state that humans aren't animals implies that you are lacking even the most basic knowledge in biology. Given that, I can understand that applying ethics on top of that is currently too much to ask.
After all, maybe a good documentary film, that actually deals with these topics, could help you with that. I can assure you that no zoo will.
