203 karma · joined October 14, 2021
But then the real question is why hypocrisy is so bad. All of us are hypocrites in different ways, on different things. Why is being a hypocrite on climate change worse than being wilfully ignorant?
Of course, I’d say the benefits of cryptocurrencies are far smaller than the benefits of the internet (it’s pretty hard to compete with connecting almost the entire world into a single instant global network for the first time). But some benefits do exist, and I feel like you’re being wilfully blind if you disagree with that.
Of course, you might feel that the downsides (massively) outweigh the upsides. And that’s fine. Others will disagree.
One thing I think we can all agree on is that crypto is at least decentralized and permissionless enough to not go away any time soon, no matter who wants it gone.
However, if you wanted to take a 1 year sabbatical, you could get a job as an engineer with a Japanese company, work for a year, apply for fast track permanent residency at the end of that year (you’ll need to meet some education/income requirements), then go back to your old job remotely. There are software jobs that hire people who don’t speak Japanese.
For sure some of it. As well as education of the workforce and the changing nature of work.
Either way, the reality is that the benefits have largely gone to capital, rather than labor. And that’s just how the system works, which is why strong unions are important.
And remember we’re not talking about their physical ability to connect to the internet (after all, no one has deprived Kiwifarms of that), we’re talking about their ability to access their audience and use their current identity.
As for the second allegation, I haven’t seen any substantiation. But I do know that in some circles any discussion in any context (eg: school) about sexual identity with teenagers has come to be considered “grooming” so I’m a bit suspect about the choice of words.
Isn’t this the exact same thing? Discouraging someone from conducting speech under their public identity is taking away their audience and community. It’s not removing their ability to speak, but it’s hard to see how it’s not restricting their free speech.
And in the exact same way, no one has removed the ability to speak of any KiwiFarms member (or indeed of their community as a whole). It’s simply been made harder for them to conduct their speech under their current public identity.
The key differences are Kiwifarms is targeting individuals personally. And that they’re doing it kind of randomly, for the lulz. Whereas their main opponents here are targeting a company/community, and acting in self-defence.
I know who I think is more worthy of protection.
Eh, I love cooking and do some pretty complex stuff (including with cheese) and I think cheese storage is pretty arbitrary tbh. I would have had no clue what to answer in the example quiz question.
For sure, if your goal is to find some famous person and contact them directly, Twitter might be the better tool. But if you want to convert a one-off purchase into a repeat customer I think email will stay the best channel for that (at least for many, many businesses) for a long time
And as other comments have said, almost any train late at night will have drunk adults as a pretty significant percentage of the passengers.
The decoupler says “put aside your objections to my proposal for a moment so that you can better understand it; then later you can reflect on these objections with a fuller understanding.”
And the person blocking the decoupling says “no, the objections are valid and therefore should be kept firmly in mind whenever you are considering anything to do with the proposal.”
Both approaches are trying to achieve something in terms of discourse. I don’t believe it’s possible to say that one approach is more fair or valid or better in all circumstances.