Viking_Hippie @ Viking_Hippie @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

216

Comments

2,125

Joined

5 mo. ago

Yeah, people become fascists by demagogues tricking them into thinking that their REAL problems can be solved using fascistic means.

In the case of Nazi Germany, rampant poverty and wounded national pride (as well as several other things, but those were the main ones) paved the way for malignant actors like Hitler and his backers to sell them fascism.

In the case of 2015 and onwards US fascism, gradually ballooning wealth and opportunity inequality, a press that focuses on attention and profits over objective reality and a duty to inform the people of same, a gradual realization by the vast majority of the population that the system is broken, and a two party system where the ratchet effect has been causing a rightward drift of the Overton Window for several decades has enabled Trump and other bad faith actors to convince millions of people that mask off fascism is the solution.

You can't make people fascist without lying to them, but lies of that magnitude need critical real world problems to gain traction.

In the case of intolerant statements and actions, empathy and tolerance are functionally the same.

You don't need to empathize with fascists in order to understand them and the lies they've been tricked by/are tricking others with.

What you need to fight fascism is knowledge about how propaganda works, the underlying societal issues granting fascists an opening, and the strategy and courage to defeat both the fascists and the less obvious people and problems that enabled their rise.

You CAN empathize with fascists if you have the necessary emotional bandwidth to do so without destroying your own sanity and/or joining them, but it's not necessary or even helpful when it comes to defeating them.

If you can make exceptions you allow for others to do so too while maintaining the guise of being empathetic

That's a false dichotomy, as pointed out here:

I made one flippant but accurate comment for laughs.

You're the one who made a huge deal about it by holding your incorrect assumptions to be undeniable Truth.

Just give the windmills you're tilting at a fucking rest already.

It's exceedingly common for a question about one narrow thing to be an indicator of desire for knowledge about a broader topic

It's MUCH more common for a question about one thing to be an indicator of desire for knowledge of just one thing.

There was basically no reason to believe this wasn't the case here

Except for Occam's Razor and, you know, how language works.

the incredibly rude response from both of you to a user being helpful is really not a good look.

You're the one being incredibly rude by insisting that an illogical assumption was the only possible interpretation of a straightforward question and that pointing that out is somehow bad.

If I asked you if it's raining, would you link me to a deep dive about evaporation and atmospheric pressure? Do you think that would be helpful?

Just don't stub your toe during union meetings, then. Or do? 🤷

Quite fittingly, the original name of that song was My Grandfather's Cock. Then the clergy complained..

I feel good

Again: Varyk asked about a single aspect (whether or not Katy Perry has called herself an astronaut) and got a 40 minute video about the whole thing. No text summary or indication of whether or not the actual question would be answered, just "watch this"

Sometimes people know about the general subject already, but just need conformation on a detail.

It's very rarely good practice to answer surface level questions with links to long deep dive videos.

Even if the recipient WOULD like the full picture, an article is MUCH easier to skim or digest whenever you want to.

A video is a time commitment and 40 minutes is about 38 minutes past the maximum reasonable time to answer a quick question.

There could not have been a more relevant and helpful response explaining the situation

Relevant? Possibly. Helpful? For reasons explained above, nope. Not really.

in light of Varys' rather shallow question that seemed to indicate a lack of understanding of the full context here…

You don't know that. You just assumed that it was a rhetorical question meant to end discussion rather than an honest question meant to provide context on whether or not the meme itself is fair to Katy Perry. In assuming ignorance and bad faith, you're being very unfair to Varys.

Btw, just in case they haven't found out themselves, here's an ACTUAL answer to the ACTUAL questoion:as far as I've been able to find out, she's NOT self-identified as an astronaut.

While that's not conclusive, it's more than likely that a lot of people would comment on it if she did, so someone who knows how to look not finding anything in one eighth of the runtime of that video would make it highly improbable.

Varyk: asks simple yes or no question

You: here's a 40 minute video explaining the whole story. It might answer your question, it might not.

in Europe in particular there's way less charging infrastructure

That's the opposite of reality in many cases.

For example, Scandinavia, Germany, and the Benelux countries have better charging networks AND much shorter distances between major population centers than the US in general.

way more people living in apartments without the ability to set up a home charge station

Would have been relevant a decade ago, but now there's public chargers at more and more parking lots and highway rest stops plus at least one major gas station chain has chargers at every station here in Denmark.

I have no doubt that conditions are even better in places like Norway and Sweden where they started adapting much earlier than we did.

way more anxiety about charging full electric EVs as a consequence, depending on the region

Bolded the only part you've been right about so far.

plug-in hybrids seem like a reasonable way to bridge that gap.

They were back when the battery technology and charging infrastructure wasn't in place to support fully transitioning to EVs, but most of Europe is way ahead of you, so as a rule rather than an exception, hybrids are an unnecessary concession, Democratic Party style.

But I'm already entertaining this conversation way more than I want, because it's going to lead off on a tangent and I don't want to go on that tangent and we're going to end up in how public transport is the real answer and there are millions of threads here to go rehash that conversation

TL;DR: you're wrong and tired of trying to justify your false assumptions, so you try to preempt the logic conclusion that many have reached by implying that it's wrong and/or or tedious.

My question is why I've seen a grand total of one Tesla on the road across three countries and yet somehow it was seemingly the top EV brand

Could be that those three countries and/or the specific parts of them you traverse aren't typical for all 44 countries of Europe.

being 100% dependent on an external monopoly is strategically and mid-term problematic.

True, but the fact of the matter is that they already have a natural monopoly on some of the rare minerals that both their and the US industry depends on.

Just slapping a tariff on every part of the process including materials like this is inevitably ruinous to the American producers of solar energy unless they pass the cost down, which they inevitably will.

There's literally no upside (other than for fossil fuel interests and the politicians in bed with them, of course) and mountains of downside to this moronic sledgehammer approach to financial diplomacy.

The problem at hand is that they are also destroying your industry, which is very bad in long term

That ship sailed DECADES ago when US corporations realized how profitable outsourcing is.

No amount of tariffs are going to make the world champions of profiteering base production in a country that so much as PRETENDS to treat workers humanely.

Trying to put that toothpaste back into the tube is only going to hurt the transition from fossil fuel powered energy when they inevitably pass the expense all the way down to the taxpayers.

TL;DR: bird law is confusing and best left to the experts

It very much depends.

Like Inuits and Eskimos, some prefer one term and are offended by the other, and with others it's the other way around..

Witcher et al, you say?

I'll take one bite now and come back for more

Every scientist in relevant fields: the number one thing humanity needs to do is phrase out fossil fuels as much as possible

Every Republican and "Centrist" (actually right wing) Democrat: la la, I can't hear you! It's laundry day today!