TaterTot

I’d reckon a nearby small rock might be better?

There are no ethical large computer manufacturers. Framework, like its competitors, financially supports unethical people, and projects, and there’s no such thing as an end-to-end ethical supply chain right now.

People want Framework to be ethical because they champion repairability, and on a relative scale, you could do a lot worse. But that’s also the problem. Most people buying a new MacBook or ThinkPad never think about ethics. Framework puts ethics front and center, then drops the ball the moment you dig deeper than repairability.

If you want to buy “ethically,” your best option is used. The device was still made unethically, by a company that funded abhorrent causes, and the seller will likely reinvest your money into the very ecosystem you’re trying to avoid. But at least you kept something out of a landfill a little longer, and put one more degree of Kevin Bacon between yourself and the worst of it.

To keep things in perspective, Framework is probably less unethical than most manufacturers, and they’re doing more for repairability than most. And even Doug Forcett wasn’t good enough for the Good Place, so you know… you have to draw your own lines.

Eh, not worried about it. It is what it is.

Yeah, if we were into each other. How they present and their AGAB matching my own preferences would be a factor.

But at the end of the day, my “straightness” is just a convenient label. If someone gets voted in by the Tribunal (Heart, Mind, and Cock), all labels are ultimately superfluous.

But we still don’t have the answer to 6 minus 7…

The song was released May 21, 2004. That is a gap of 19 years~. 19 years ago, it was 2007.

He did!

I enjoy it when I find out I was wrong. That moment of “oh shit!?” is awesome.

I also really enjoy arguing pedantically over fictional worlds.

He absolutely did!

Damn. That was, apropos to your themes, an excellent read. I’ve seen several comments here reference the shifted Overton window and how it offers a diversity distinct from larger, more mainstream platforms. But you really did a great job writing about the value a discerning eye can glean.

I do have one gripe with your comment, however:

People are still making ten course meals of real content, but most readers are still hanging out at the food trucks.

I will not stand for this food truck slander! Food trucks are to the world of food what Lemmy is to the landscape of social media. They present an alternative starting point from which to derive ideas contrary to established conventions. I implore you: don’t pass them off as the culinary equivalent of doomscroll slop. Instead, recognize that a discerning connoisseur can find flavors driven by passion, unbound from convention!

Okay, enough melodrama. Seriously though, I think your comment was the best-considered take on OP’s question.

That’s a fair point. I could have used less definitive language. The concept of objective vs. relative truth, or even whether such a thing exists, is a philosophical discussion I didn’t mean to broach. And I certainly did not mean to imply there was a single correct opinion on all topics.

I simply meant to summarize my concerns with equating diverse opinions with inherently healthy discourse. While many topics can, as you noted, have a plethora of valid opinions based on perspective, they can also have opinions simply meant to “poison the well,” as it were (or simply be wrong regardless of perspective). Climate change deniers being given equal time and weight on the news, for example.

Perhaps it would have been better phrased: “Diversity of opinions has no direct correlation with accuracy, sincerity, factuality, or value.”

Using slurs or tackling sensitive topics in dark humor is a high-difficulty craft. It requires a deep understanding of the subject, your audience, and enough cultural context to frame the joke appropriately. When done well, it can break through prejudice, fear, and cultural boundaries, leaving the audience with a deeper understanding of the human condition. The Boondocks and South Park come to mind as examples (then again, even those sometimes miss the mark). This is true not only in comedy, but most all forms of art.

However, as many people here have already pointed out, those who evangelize “dark humor” are often just using it as a shield to hide bigotry and normalize prejudice. Or otherwise are attempting to use shock, at the expense of others, to derive a cheap laugh. In all of these cases, the harm caused runs in direct opposition to the value of comedy, and should be treated with the same disdain it shows for its victims.

So to answer your question: yes, I’m okay with all forms of humor meant to bring people together and lift each other up, including dark humor. But knowing myself, my audience, and how my background affects how my jokes are perceived, I would not be able to pull such humor off gracefully or with the respect it deserves. Nor do I have any desire to use, or see any personal value or utility in using, slurs in any context. Instead, I use humor I can pull off to make those around me feel safe, comfortable, and able to laugh together. Which again, should be the goal imho.

Agreed. Though upon re-reading my point, I regret specifying “here”, as it might give the impression I think it is unique or more prevalent here than elsewhere.

I think this is simply a common human trait that is found in all communities. Even surprisingly in debate and philosophy communities. I’ve been guilty of it without even noticing.

It’s not terribly surprising to find a lack of diversity in opinions here. The Fediverse, in general, is a fringe alternative to the big social media platforms. Using it is, in and of itself, an opinionated decision that we all more or less share.

When people use Reddit, TikTok, or similar platforms, they go there to find their subset of culture. That’s the benefit of their scale. When you use Lemmy, the platform itself is your subset of culture.

It’s very fair, and smart, to be skeptical of a one-sided consensus of opinions without adequate research. You will often see strawmen and a lack of understanding toward groups that disagree with the prevailing thoughts here. Never use only one source, and never trust a social media platform to give you the full picture.

However, you also want to beware of the False Balance and Golden Mean fallacies. Diversity of opinions has no direct correlation with truth. If a topic is worth forming an opinion on, it’s worth doing real research on. Reading internet arguments will only reinforce bias.

I mostly just upvote or pass. If someone is adding to the conversation and keeping the Fediverse alive, upvote. Like throwing a thumbs up.

Effin’ A, Cotton, Effin’ A

That’s not all! That’s not all!

I get hit from both in waves.

I’ll spend anywhere from weeks to a couple months on self improvement, but on the tail end it will be all rote and forced until I’m so bored I can’t take it.

Then I’ll do the exact same thing with chilling.

Weird part is, when I’m at the start of either wave, it feels like I’ve discovered the true secret of living a fulfilled life.

Couldn’t agree more. The rise of digital surveillance has sparked a necessary counterwave, a deeper reexamination of why we valued privacy in the first place.

And while I’d love to claim credit, it sounds like you and I map have taken a similar deep dive into the topic. I’m really just standing on the shoulders of thinkers who’ve been wrestling with this far longer and more deeply than I have. My response was just an attempt to distill the ideas that resonated most, hopefully with a little clarity.

Glad it landed.

Edit: I wrote a long rebuttal last night. Wasn’t sober. Woke up, read it, and thought: Ain’t nobody got time for that.

So instead, just the core point:

It’s not a stretch to say privacy protects both our legal rights and our willingness to access and share information.

It is a stretch to claim that not recording and uploading everything I do in private will cause a “state of deformity and disease.”

That’s not physics. That’s selling data collection as snake oil. It’s an attempt to justify a world view without examining it’s ramifications.