Atheistic Satanist - justice, compassion, science.

On Mastodon
Contra Odium - Antifascist/antibigotry extreme metal radio show The Devil’s Library - Podcast of atheistic Satanists discussing books

  • 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2025

help-circle

  • It would improve the society

    No. It would create a society in which the powerful have decided which genes are the ones they like when in reality, its diversity and complexity that is what’s ‘best’ for humans.

    and people quality of life

    That is not how eugenics works.

    I don’t understand why is it bad

    Then take a biodiversity and ethics class.

    Just to Godwin the thread, eugenics is the province of nazi’s and other totalitarian regimes. Even though it could never work in the way they want, all anyone who advocates eugenics really wants is to eradicate other people different than them.








  • Lots of reasons.

    1. They pay their artists an an absolute pittance with a model that vastly favours the big labels. New artists, those artists striving to establish themselves and/or independent artists are screwed over.

    2. At the same time they pay hundreds of millions of dollars to pricks like Joe Rogan.

    3. The ‘fake artists’ controversy where Spotify pay stock music production companies to produce pretty bland ‘playlist’ mood music, then created an internal team to seed these tracks on their uberhyped suggested playlists.

    4. Getting caught heavily promoting AI Bands who have been trained on actual musicians work, without paying them for it, which in turn allows Spotify to pay out even less royalties to actual musicians.

    5. Daniel Ek recently investing in 100m Euros into an AI weapons company, which has triggered an artist boycott.

    6. You have zero ownership and zero access rights to the music you stream.

    In short, if you care at all about music and the people who make it then streaming in general is not a good model for their future and Spotify is poison.





  • Yes its a swear word. Yes, there is a shrinking population where I am (UK) that still can associate it with its original meaning (but that is different in other places too) but you can apply that weak justification to a lot of other words too. ‘Cool’ literally means ‘not warm’ but it has also evolved to incorporate other totally different meanings, which can also vary slightly or a lot depending on geographical colloquial use.

    You find it offensive because of your local cultural interpretations. I acknowledge that and respect it, hence why I have said things like ‘that word’ in my subsequent comments to you. What I’m asking you to consider is that, in places away from your local culture, it doesn’t carry that meaning and hasn’t for some time. The US is not the entire world.


  • I really don’t mind discussing this with you, but please at least make an effort to have your statements make some kind of sense. Just try and envisage the possibility that outside of the US the same or similar words have always had, or have evolved to have, different or alternative meanings. The people where I live who still interpret the word in the same way you insist is the only possible interpretation are of an older generation. Its in pretty common use by all genders in younger generations.

    Also, if you ever get around to getting a passport (a document that lets you travel to other countries), you might want to leave Australia, the UK and Ireland in particular out of any travel plans you have.