Tiresia

I put together this gif for a side-by-side comparison. The picture was taken from a slightly different location, so it's not perfect, but the difference is obvious.

Your mistake is seeing them as Democrat voters. Maybe if the Republicans had a brown candidate they would vote for them instead.

ASML is basically a strategic asset. Breaking them up to have a more level playing field inherently threatens the West's economic-political position. If ASML abused their position, it wouldn't be the regulators so much as the CIA that showed up to tell them to reconsider.

99.99999% of Americans are never affected by gun violence

34 Americans are affected by gun violence?

Dude, you blow through that budget with one particularly quiet afternoon in Detroit.

If things are stable at the current rate, 2.4% of Americans get killed or hospitalized by gunshots in their lifetime. Those affected includes everyone related to those people as well as everyone who is injured but not hospitalized and everyone who is merely physically coerced or intimidated by guns. And honestly it should even include those who are treated roughly by cops because those cops have to be emotionally and functionally ready to handle gun violence at all times, those who must severely change their lives to avoid the risk of gun violence, and those who live in justified fear without being directly personally affected.

A more realistic estimate would be that 75% of Americans are not deeply traumatized by gun violence, 30% of Americans don't suffer actively because of gun violence, and 1% of Americans don't spend their lives afraid of gun violence (including the toxic conservative bravado as pretty transparent "making yourself look intimidating to scare off the threat" behavior).

tl;dr: Peer pressure is a normal and healthy part of communication. You use it in this comment and it is baked into this website through the karma system. Using it for disagreement and not just conformity is important to keep groups attached to meaningful values. I don't think "What the fuck is wrong with you" is unfriending, and I think that sort of harsh peer pressure can be and was justified by its context. I think you're mistakenly arguing against peer pressure in general and absolute terms when your issue is specific and one of degrees.

Indeed it is a poor tool for determining whether the intended goals are worthy. That's what the entire rest of the comment that people have been systematically ignoring is for. Condemnation is the sledgehammer in a suite of construction tools, itself unable to tell whether it is in the right place doing the right thing, but justified (or not) by it context.

And, like I said, upvote karma is peer pressure. People can see at a glance how many people will see something and how many people agree with it in a way that becomes a self-fulfilling Keynesian Beauty Contest. If you truly believe peer pressure is wrong, then the lemmy architecture is fundamentally hostile to you. If an invective adds toxicity to the soil, then the soil here is full of lead already.

But the reason civil debate between neutral people has so little part in progress is because nobody is truly neutral, not because so few people choose to be civil. Marxism works well as a model for society because people are by nature hypocritical. Philosophy, culture, and social groups are a layer of topsoil, vegetation, and human structures covering the mountains of what we think benefits us personally over the course of our lives. Argumentation can redirect superficial flows, which occasionally allows for a key watershed moment where your way of life is redirected onto another plausible course, and that course over time changes the geography. Sometimes that redirection means taking a sledgehammer to a wall.

I agree that it is easy to cooperate with people when you only care about liking and trusting them. That's how you get social groups and movements that are entirely detached from reality, a bog of stagnant water. If you want a social group to have sensible, actionable beliefs rather than descend into circlejerk, you need the members of your group to be systematically willing to cause offense when it improves the group's ability to interact with the outside world. And for them to be systematically willing, you need to react positively to them doing so. Otherwise, over time, the detritus and resistance builds up in that channel and it clogs up, and the flow becomes stagnant or goes elsewhere.

When you ask me to choose people liking and trusting each other over processing disagreement, you are not opting out of peer pressure. You're simply using (soft) peer pressure to enforce group norms that are about cameraderie rather than beliefs.

I do not consider the application of peer pressure to be outside the scope of good faith argument, otherwise I would not be on this website with its karma system, I would not reply to you when you talk about whether or not people will like me, and in fact I would not be able to communicate with anyone. I don't feel like @solo is an enemy or an unfriend, just someone who needed a wake-up call.

I don't see saying "what the fuck is wrong with you" after someone says something horrendous as abusive. I would personally genuinely appreciate that kind of clarity if I said something that revealed a fucked up underlying attitude, when accompanied with a sensible explanation. It's an emotive way of saying that you're noticing something deeply wrong with someone's worldview, and opens up the talk in that context. And honestly, I doubt you or others on here are unfamiliar with that sort of usage and don't partake in good-faith invectives yourselves on occasion.

Honestly, I think that maybe y'all have talked yourselves into a corner arguing against peer pressure and invectives in general when you really only disagree with how (and whether) it was applied in this instance. I could be wrong, but that's my impression.

The thing is, I used constructive arguments to build up to the invective. If you just use an invective without context you're just yelling at people. But if you think using invectives/personal attacks is not justifiable, good job stooping to what you perceive to be my level, I guess?

Please answer honestly: did you watch the video before commenting?

Sounds like an set-up to ensure long-term dependency on natural gas mining, then.

Sorry, we built our infrastructure assuming 80% natural gas, so we just have to mine more natural gas to prevent people from losing their ability to cook food. You wouldn't want poor families to go hungry, would you?

Police have discretion on which crimes to prioritize. They're not honor-bound to ticket someone who is double-parked in the middle of a car chase. They can opt not to arrest people for trespassing if it gets them to cooperate with a murder investigation.

Going to arrest pacifists engaging in criminal conspiracy to temporarily block nonessential industry and infrastructure at one location while ignoring ongoing racially motivated assault, looting, and arson is a choice.

Sisko (and Keira?) by time travel shenanigans ends up in the grim dark future of 2024, where capitalism and loss of solidarity has lead to rampant homelessness and unemployment, and disregard for those affected. The homeless people are forbidden from being in public except in heavily guarded 'sanctuary districts', i.e. concentration camps.

Bell, a black guy and political agitator living in a sanctuary district, gets killed shortly after Sisko arrives. Sisko remembers from history that him being shot by police let to riots that resulted in a leftist movement that put the world onto the path towards fully automated luxury space communism, but Bell got shot too soon, so it's up to Sisko to impersonate him.

Character drama happens, Sisko waxes poetically about solidarity and kindness, and eventually Sisko gets shot and then timey wimeys back to the 24th century. He looks in the archives for newspapers of the riots and sees his own face as Bell.

The question isn't whether someone in the comments section can imagine the job, it's whether the same 'you' who does the job can imagine the job being done by a pig in a children's book.

Also, if you're complaining about it being unfalsibiable, don't give more examples for them to judge, ask the people defending the joke for counterexamples. That's just logical (in the literal mathematical sense). That is to say, jobs that can't be pictured as something done by pigs in children's books.

There I would say hedge fund managers, health insurance coverage evaluators, and telemarketers.

As for looking down on people for just trying to pay their bills, how do you come to that conclusion? Unemployed people and chronically disabled people don't have real jobs either. Do you look down on them? If not, why assume people are looking down on people who do fake jobs to pay the bills?

Why do you think this post isn't pointing to super morally dubious jobs?

When a moderator makes a request for moderation in someone's conduct, it seems weird to ignore the aspect of them being a moderator. It's not about the rules, per se, but if their request is done from the office of a moderator then that use of authority should be as fair as possible.

As for it being a good suggestion, personal attacks like this, where you're only 'personally' attacking deep-rooted opinions (including ones someone personally identifies with), are valid. For example, you don't need to have a civil debate about whether trans people deserve to pee with a transphobe. If you can win the peer pressure battle, a personal attack is better for everyone involved. Our liberal education has whitewashed history to make it seem like civil debate between neutral people had a much bigger part in progress than it did. Personal attacks are a form of peer pressure, getting people to re-examine deep-rooted beliefs that in a discussion they would cling to as axioms.

There are other valid ways to put on peer pressure, whether it's inviting envy by having a happier life, whether it's building friendship and rapport until they're open to trying to something out, or whether it's a reward in the form of bragging rights, prestige, or upvote karma. But this time this one felt right.