Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I arrived in China 2001.

I experienced the harshest and largest lockdown in all of history: Wuhan, January 23rd, 2020. A real lockdown, not the cosplay bullshit you experienced outside of China. (Yes, this is me saying you’ve never fucking set foot in the country.)

The rest you’re just flat-out lying about. Sorry, Sparky. Did pet killings happen? Yes. They were not the mass shit that the press you’re so obviously reciting acts like they were. Did some doors get welded? Yes. But nowhere near you and, again, nowhere near in the masses the press you’re basing your lies on made it seem like. The local salaries are garbage iff you’re a fuckwit sitting in the west applying western prices to Chinese salaries. (Which, naturally, you are, good little fuckwit liar that you are.) And you’ve changed your tune from 14 hours to 12 hours really fucking quickly there, Sparky, not to mention using the proper slang only after I gave it to you.

So yeah, you’re just a west-dwelling fuckwit lying about being here. Go toddle off in your China Watcher corners and play with the rest of the intellectual children you belong with. There’s a good boy.

Removed by mod

Yes. Some people are beyond hope. Therefore we shouldn’t bother with empathy with all people. This is exactly how logic works. Yes.

But yes, indeed, some people are beyond hope. It’s why I won’t bother engaging with you further. (Guess where you just got categorized…)

You’re also conflating empathy with acquiescence.

Indeed. This is because he lacks actual empathy so doesn’t actually comprehend the very concept.

Yes. That’s exactly what everybody here is saying.

I resubmit: you lack all capacity to comprehend any viewpoint other than yours and will only damage anything you believe in as a result.

That “slippery slope” is absolutely vital to slither down if you want to formulate public policy.

If you don’t understand why people mistrust “big pharma” or “big government” or “big [sobriquet]” and reflexively dismiss anything that involves them, you cannot formulate public policy that will be effective.

Very rarely do people say “I’m going to dismiss centuries of scientific progress for this quack cure” without a reason. It’s maybe not a reason you agree with. It’s maybe not a reason reality agrees with. But you know what it might be? It might be a reason that traces back to how “big [sobriquet]” has acted toward such people in the past, often persistently over a long period of time, that has led to that breakdown in trust. In short: you (as in the beneficiaries of the status quo and “big [sobriquet]”, directly or indirectly) may be at least partially historically culpable in the opposition you now face.

Now I get it: accepting that you yourself are partially culpable for “irrational” opposition is a bitter elixir to swallow, but if you don’t take that first step toward understanding, you can’t take the second step to correcting the problem. And the problem will continue to fester and take root until, oh, I don’t know, something utterly fucking insane happens and a million of your fellow citizens die in a public health disaster because half your population doesn’t trust the very institutions that were needed to prevent said disaster.

So maybe you should learn to enjoy sliding down slippery slopes. Or, you know, die in the next easily-preventable pandemic. Like a million of your fellow citizens (assuming you’re American: insert your own numbers for your own country if not) did in the current one.

Not all people can be persuaded by “connected knowing” (not a big fan of this terminology), but many can be (over time).

NOBODY, however, who can’t be persuaded by “connected knowing” will be persuaded by “separate learning”, so I’m not sure what your point here is.

In human language: You are completely and absolutely devoid of any degree of empathy or compassion and thus your own worst enemy when it comes to persuading others. You are far more likely to damage any cause you espouse than to promulgate it.

Human enough for you? If you’d rather have it in binary bits, let me know which ISA you are programmed in and I’ll write the program that explains it to you.

Apparently you care enough to comment.

I think you should probably instead know that it’s better to just donate directly to the aid agencies actually supplying the aid instead of letting a non-aid entity charity-wash themselves to get more money later.

You know what really grinds my gears?

Someone not pushing the clutch all the way in when changing gear?

Leftism acts like a cult.

Trump: [exists, has a cult-like following, is 100% right wing]

QAnon: [exists, is a literal cult, is 100% right wing]

Yeah, sure buddy. Whatever lets you look in the mirror without getting the urge to smash that face into a bloody pulp.

You’re smelling mostly the scatole. That’s the primary contributor to the smell of faeces.

Scatole is used in making perfumes, incidentally. And vanilla ice cream.

Not. Just. Your. Hands.

Gen ZPeople online hashave an issue with not comprehending nuance.

Fixed that for you.

I’ve been “online” since before there was what people consider to be “online” today was even widely available. (I had to make do with things like BITNET or FidoNet before the commercial Internet became a thing.) One thing that has always typified online discussions is a lack of nuance. Sometimes it’s deliberate, like when people can’t refute what you say so they leap on some imagined slight in how you used a pronoun (to use modern issues), and sometimes it’s just that people can’t read. But this has been an issue as far back as the very early 1980s and likely far longer than that even.

I’m not in Copenhagen, however.

Here it comes paired with a surveillance state that will catch you stealing a bicycle and have the cops waiting for you at your home before you can even reach it.

Mastodon has limits for number of pictures. Pixelfed has higher limits out of the box. Pixelfed has image filters available. Mastodon doesn’t seem to. Pixelfed’s UX is oriented toward picture management. Mastodon’s is oriented toward the textual experience.

They’re different products that happen to share a protocol.