mycodesucks

mycodesucks OP , 3 days ago

Better than I expected, tbh.

mycodesucks , 5 days ago

Romance is different when you're both old enough to have so much life experience under your belt. It isn't the same. Not saying it's better or worse, but it's absolutely different.

mycodesucks , 5 days ago

What gross vibes?

Don't lump the guy in with incels. He's not blaming other people for his problems, or complaining. He's just lamenting. I don't see anything in his post that's gross. Leave a lonely dude alone. God forbid he let himself feel sad for 5 seconds.

mycodesucks , 5 days ago

I take you at your word that that was your intention, but it doesn't read that way. It comes off with a tone of mockery and hostility.

mycodesucks , 5 days ago

As long as you’re alive and capable of communicating

...here we go with the impossible standards.

mycodesucks , 9 days ago

do they start losing control of shares until they’re below that threshold?

Sounds good to me. Dole them out to employees.

mycodesucks , 9 days ago

There is a significant difference between "lose control of the company" and "not being the exclusive beneficiary of the success of the company", and it's a strawman argument to suggest otherwise.

Even with a 1 billion dollar cap, the vast majority of companies are not worth nearly a billion dollars, and of those that are, you would have to double that before that owner would not have a controlling interest, and while I acknowledge that the owner losing control of the company is not necessarily an intentional result of this kind of rule, by the time a company reaches a value where that would even be a threat, they have such an outsized impact on society through their operation that it is actually irresponsible for any single person or small group of people to have such control. Organizations can grow to have outsized impact on millions of lives, entire communities, or even the direction of history. What is reprehensible isn't capping their control of such an organization - it's allowing that control to impact the world with absolutely no check by those its operation affects. I don't know your country of origin, but if you are American you at least pay lip service to the idea that power derives from the consent of those over whom it is wielded.
I would suggest to you the radical interpretation is that that should only apply to government when extremely large companies have much, much more power to impact peoples' daily lives.

mycodesucks , 9 days ago

Look, this isn't even the standard operating procedure of society. Corporations are the ONLY situation where we seem to have decided providing the seed of creation equates to perpetual ownership.

ANYTHING else you create comes with a time limit before it takes on a life of its own beyond you.

You wrote a book? Your copyright WILL expire and it WILL be out of your control.

You invented something? That's great. Eventually your patent expires and it becomes publicly usable.

Hell, the closest equivalent to a company? Is having a BABY. You put in a seed to create something, you do a ton of work to raise it to function. Are you going to suggest that a parent should have perpetual control over their children and the things they produce as well? And it has been established by LEGAL PRECEDENT that a corporation IS a person.

ALL of these things are accepted default procedure in our society. In NO other situation do we consider creation to be equivalent to perpetual ownership of all aspects of a thing. YOU are arguing the exception, not us.

mycodesucks , 8 days ago

All of that is completely true and also irrelevant. The point isn't the specific details, the point is the idea that "perpetual control" is not the default modus operandi of the structure of our system. As to the specific details of where that line is drawn, that's something that's up for debate. All we need as a starting point is to acknowledge that unquestioned, perpetual individual control of an entity that can create and destroy the lives of millions has at least the POTENTIAL to be a dangerous social ill, and the specific details of how we address that can come from there. If you cannot see or acknowledge that at any level, then we're not even looking at reality from the same perspective, and we're not starting from the same priors, so there's no point in discussing it any further - there's no point of agreement we'll be able to reach.

mycodesucks , 8 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ae44be0b-1b02-4c70-91d0-1747f67c2696.jpeg

mycodesucks , 10 days ago

Not to be defeatist, but...

We didn't abolish slavery... we just replaced it with wage slavery. Sure, the workers are free to leave - and try to survive with no other job opportunities and no money. In fact, for the employers, this is actually preferable to real slavery, because there are lower upfront costs for your slaves, they don't try to run away or rebel, you don't have to pay for their healthcare or long term care, and in many places government tax dollars will subsidize their living expenses. Employers have it WAY better with wage slaves than real slaves.

Child labour is still alive and well in many countries, and even there the ball is rolling on rolling THAT back in the US at least.

I admire your positivity, but I'll believe it when I see it.

mycodesucks , 10 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

Okay, I can see how you got that from my post. I was a bit hyperbolic in my original post, and I apologize.

I'm not REALLY making a moral equivalence argument or saying anything about comparing the horrors of slavery to work... I'm saying getting rid of slavery was easier to enact because there was an alternative system that happened to be ultimately profitable for the rich at the same time. Yes, wars have been fought to stop abolition, but at the end of the day, after slavery was abolished, the rich found a way to stay rich almost everywhere - abolition came at very little real change to the wealth structure of society. They had a supply of labor to exploit for profit during slavery, and they had one after. The fact is that the moral and financial interests both aligned on making abolition happen - it wasn't caused by pure strength of willpower. And yes, the system we have now is MUCH MUCH better than true slavery, but it's still a stretch to use the current system as a beacon of hope.

On climate change the moral and financial interests are NOT aligned in a clear way. There are always still going to be financial incentives to screw the climate for extra money. By comparison, if slavery were somehow legal again TODAY, it's not clear it would be profitable for anybody to actually do it. That difference will make climate goals harder to enact.

mycodesucks , 10 days ago

I agree with your conclusion, but I don't agree that it's feasible. Any tax solutions will involve legislation by a government owned by those same interests. And even if you managed it in major economies, you'd just force the climate issues into places with fewer qualms about their fuel usage. I'd love to see this problem solved, but my faith in our ability to resolve it is far less than yours.

mycodesucks , 10 days ago

I hope for everyone's sake you're right, but if that does come to pass it will come as a surprise to me.

mycodesucks OP , 11 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0c998575-0096-40ac-a204-f04c596a9fea.jpeg

mycodesucks OP , 11 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c0364c24-2ac3-4709-b968-33533d66c5ee.jpeg

mycodesucks OP , 11 days ago

When Shrek is outlawed, only outlaws will have Shrek.

mycodesucks OP , 11 days ago

Sounds like you need some on-the-spot guidance.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/64a39436-826e-4e75-94da-0231ae4ad2dd.jpeg

mycodesucks OP , 11 days ago

Maybe the guidance is "Fix your nightmare faces."

mycodesucks OP , 11 days ago

That was all Bing's idea. My prompt only included "smiling children".

mycodesucks , 13 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c75d7c28-19fb-4b06-91ca-419363ce1eec.jpeg

mycodesucks , 11 days ago

Did somebody say Catholic Shrek?

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/92fe30e3-88b1-454f-9f95-807f09407902.jpeg

mycodesucks , 17 days ago

we’re all a bunch of baby-eating, baby-fucking Satan worshippers,

God, I hope it's not the same baby...

mycodesucks , 20 days ago

There is no way anybody would shut him down as long as he's not violating the conditions imposed by the judgement. As long as he is working, every dime he's making is going to pay his victims. It wouldn't make ANY sense whatsoever to shut him down.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

I don't think he'll stop. But from a practical standpoint you're voting between the status quo level of genocide, and an even GREATER level of genocide. Voting for MORE genocide is objectively worse.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

Criticize all you want. I certainly do. But understand at the end of the day that as pathetically little as Biden is doing to help, he isn't doing literally zero. Allowing Trump to win is objectively voting for MORE genocide, and in fact, the end of any potential for a Palestinian state in any form. None of this is secret - none of this is speculation. If people would take 15 minutes and read the ACTUAL Trump middle eastern peace plan that he ACTUALLY PUT FORTH when he was president, it's pretty obvious he would allow MUCH MUCH worse than Biden without batting an eye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_peace_plan

There is no room for argument on that. Is Biden bad for Palestinians and allowing genocide? Yes. Would allowing Trump to win be WORSE? Yes. You're upset that angry wolves are eating someone, and you should be. But the solution is not replacing them with angry bears.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Nobody thinks a little genocide is okay. Nobody is saying that at all. But it's not a choice between a little genocide and no genocide. It's a difference between a little genocide and a LOT of genocide. When Trump gives his blessing to glassing Gaza with a nuke, will you tell the remnants of the civilians that are left that it's fine because the Democrats will understand now that they should've been harder on Israel?

What is actually more important? Doing what's best for the Palestinians from the options that actually exist, or punishing Democrats?

I'm not any happier than you are about the choices that we have, but wishful thinking doesn't give us a third path. This isn't a movie. To get a third option you'd have to convince at the very least a plurality of the population of the US to vote for another candidate that is gung-ho behind forcing Israel to stop (a proposition that isn't guaranteed even if the US cuts off all support today, by the way). That's a tall order, especially with how well it's going convincing 100 or so people on a Lemmy thread.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

Okay, fair point, and I acknowledge it. I'm no saint and I get preachy. It's a character flaw, and I apologize if I caused offense.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

Perhaps. But Trump will ALSO interpret victory as a mandate, as he's ALREADY interpreted LOSS as a mandate, and so we're clear on his stance...

"In statements since the war began, Trump has promised, if elected, to cut off all US aid to Palestinians and urged other nations to follow suit if he returns to the Oval Office.

The former president also pledged to bar refugees from Gaza under an expansion of his first-term travel ban on Muslim-majority countries; expel immigrants who sympathize with Hamas; revoke the visas of foreign students deemed “anti-American” or “antisemitic”; and impose “strong ideological screening” to keep out foreign nationals who “want to abolish Israel”."

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

Completely understood. Not implying you would. Just trying to impress as a matter of general statement how important it is that he NOT win. He will interpret victory as a mandate. I know everyone is sick of hearing it, but it is so important that it bears repeating as much as the discourse can support, because the voices claiming a noble ideological victory from abstention have no such qualms about flooding the conversation wherever they can.

mycodesucks , 29 days ago

I mean, for me it's hyperbole, but whether it's a literal nuke or a completely unrestrained Israeli army outfitted with unlimited US weapons, the outcome for Palestinian refugees in Gaza isn't much different.

mycodesucks , 28 days ago (edited 28 days ago)

Since you asked, I'll answer.

My acknowledged character flaw is my preachiness about my position, particularly in a environment like a lemmy thread where we're all shouting into a void. I do not, however, make apologies for my position.

I am not a dem apologist - I am a utilitarian. I would love to see both Biden and Trump out on their asses and a viable, functioning third party option. But that is one of a number of things that are not realistic right now. I look at the world right now and I don't have the ability to look at the trolley problem we've been given, sit down, and refuse to make a decision because I believe it's going to somehow punish the trolley for daring to give me a choice I don't like. I have to choose whether to pull the lever.

The absolute reality of this election boils down to two logically consistent positions that make sense.

• 1. The system is so utterly unsalvageable and without merit that I am willing to make any sacrifice to force a shock to the system that might be big enough to shatter it in the hopes that something better can emerge in the future.
• 2. The best we can do is to minimize damage until an opportune time to push for greater change.

Both of these positions are logically consistent, and make total sense. I don't happen to agree with the first one, but if that's your jam? I understand it. But own it. The logically inconsistent position that drives me absolutely crazy is to claim that a Biden loss is somehow consistent with a moral crusade to protect Palestinian refugees. That's absolutely insane and illogical to the point where it is at best based in ignorance and at worst reeks of intellectual dishonesty. If you are motivated primarily by the fate of Palestinians, a Biden victory or loss is not about Biden at all. If you are motivated primarily by number 1, and you want break the eggs to make the omelette, have the moral courage to be honest about it. I, for one, am not in that boat. I don't have the ability to perform the fancy, nonsensical mental gymnastics necessary to sacrifice an entire culture of people on the altar of my ideological purity and then claim with a straight face that I'm somehow doing it for their benefit. I have to do the cold, calculating work of estimating how many people will ACTUALLY die and/or suffer as a result of the decisions I do or do not make, and then make an unpalatable choice that protects the things I find important because that's just how life is. A series of sub-optimal choices that reflect the messy reality we live in.

I expect everyone to do the same, even if the things they find important aren't the same things I do. But when someone claims to value the same things I do and ALSO make decisions that are against those interests by EVERY single sound and reasonable measure? I already dealt with that kind of nonsense when I used to get dragged to church.

As pointed out earlier, this person I responded to in this thread isn't that person, and I do apologize for implying otherwise. But the person I'm talking about here DOES exist. That person is in this thread. And that person needs to hear this.

mycodesucks , 27 days ago (edited 27 days ago)

It seems to me we're almost on the same page.

You're right - my posts aren't referring to a SPECIFIC person, but general statements targeted at a casual reader of the thread.

I think this is where most people's overreaction comes from - being so passionate about the desired OUTCOME that they forget to actually be convincing about how to get there. Yes, there are a huge number of us that are not huge fans of many of Biden's decisions, but voting for him anyway because of the limited number of choices we have. But there are clearly people out there who aren't as inclined towards making those subtle distinctions, and it's important that the discourse, as much as possible, makes clear to people that their vote need not be a declaration of undying love. It's okay to say "Biden, but not happy about it." It's really important that those people see the whole view, particularly when there's so much knee-jerk reaction towards both "YOU MUST SUPPORT HIM" and "YOU CAN'T SUPPORT HIM".

That said, while of course it eases conscience to talk about how Biden has problems, helping someone who is gung-ho about supporting him to have doubts has almost no tangible benefits to the external reality we live in from the standpoint of the outcome I desire (I don't post here to be neutral - of course I have a bias), and may actually have a negative impact. Helping someone who is on the fence understand that despite voting being essentially binary, there is a whole spectrum of valid ways to think about it, can lead someone to making a decision that can have a real impact on getting the outcome I see as best, so of course I want to counter the former with the latter.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

It's easy to say that when you're an outside party who doesn't understand or care about the underlying issues. Not to minimize the issue with the metaphor, but have you ever fought with a sibling or someone else at school and your disinterested parent our authority figure told you to both to stop without addressing any of either of your underlying problems? How well did it work?

Pretending that "just stop it" deals with the realities of a complex history of real grievances and legitimate causes for anger and retribution on both sides is the most magical of magical thinking, and it doesn't help that third party negotiators usually start their peace proceedings by learning NOTHING about the history of distrust and anger building up over decades, picking a side to ride or die with, and then declaring the issue fixed as soon as someone signs an agreement.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/9ba8770d-76f9-40d4-99aa-ad923ef810dd.jpeg

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

This is the latest stupid trend.

Even the BBQ restaurants are getting in on it.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/63436be6-4cfb-4ea0-b188-fa8fc0ea9714.png

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

Not that I don't believe what's being said here, but can anybody who speaks Hebrew confirm the subtitles are accurate translations?

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

I think with the original source being verified, that's good enough to check. Thanks for identifying it. Much appreciated.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

Polnareff?

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Czech Republic, where apparently holding up a single index finger means 2.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

I was only there a month. I can't claim to be any kind of expert. But I do know I wound up eating two sausages.

mycodesucks , 1 month ago

Fascinating. Didn't know that!

mycodesucks , 2 months ago

Okay, maybe this is true.

It's also possible you're talking to someone in the long tail of that bell curve who is already taking care of themselves. You are making a lot of assumptions and your attempt to push responsibility onto him when he may in fact be in the lowest percent of that bell curve, and if he is, your well-intentioned controversial opinion is like throwing salt in his wounds.

People always just assume they can do this with this problem. If someone has mental health issues, they tell them to seek help. If someone has physical issues, they tell them to see a doctor. If they have relationship issues, "Oh, it's all your fault, man. Work on yourself." even in the absence of ANY evidence.

I know it's uncomfortable to think about the people in that bottom 1% of the bell curve who are completely helpless and overwhelmed, but victim blaming isn't a good way to deal with it.

mycodesucks , 2 months ago

All I'm saying is, when people post these kinds of things, they're likely not looking for platitudes or advice. If they wanted that, the title of the post would've been "someone help me". It's okay to let people vent about a situation that sucks for them without telling them all of the things you think they should be doing differently.

mycodesucks , 2 months ago

I suppose that's a fair point. I can't make the claim I know that.