People are so wealthy at the top that what they want is a secretary but still don’t want to pay for one.

Nope.

Why beg for something that is impossible and likely to add to my pain later in life? I see no reason to hold onto that dream or to beg for it.

I don’t understand what is worth sticking around indefinitely for either when it’s the fact that the present is slipping by so quickly for so many. You don’t get it back for living longer.

I was about to say,
“Cause there is no free third space for you and the lads to hang out” but you seem to have figured it out.

In proper capitalism you have to pay for the privilege to exist anywhere

Nothing is ever really over. There is always change and we don’t know what’s gonna happen just what is happening.

I mean he was already a nepo baby prick pretending to be blue collar. And he very clearly had issues with people of color and firearms.

But I think the stroke made him feel more emboldened to not have to listen to others or made him more over confident in his own mental fortitude. It sure makes it look like he never intended to actually help anyone, and I think he would have just hid it better pre-stroke.

He’s unfortunately not. Just a liar and a prick in a time where we are easily fooled because of our few good options.

Oh just brag about stealing my wife, why don’t you!

I get it. Their smiles are definitely fake.

But nope, that’s just the finest Turkish silk (literally) in a nice 4 leaf fold. Though I’m preferential to a 2 point puff, it’s cooler and looks less AI generic

And you have a problem resulting to insults when you are not being understood rather than trying harder to communicate.

Oh I am not really one for sarcasm unless for comedic purpose. Hyperbole, sure.
But, I wear my emotions on my sleeves and when I thank someone or tell them off I mean it entirely. I’m here for the conversation and I appreciate you having it with me.

Oh shoot forgot to say.

Thanks for the conversation. I feel more, I want to say expanded, in my view on voting and it’s usefulness for those that remain more silent than myself.

Interesting. I particularly think your last point might be really key to the use of voting.

It feels like a way to participate.
I guess it takes all types to make a community and that includes those that don’t want to participate at full effort all the time.

I do not find upvotes and down votes to be very guaranteed to match facts and using it as a checking tool would require a very different user ase that would likely not be human. But I understand you said to an extent. I just… Give it less slack. But hard down voted, sure, needs way more reservations.

I am just saying the point of these forums is more the conversation and less the voting and it’s really not very useful as a tool, while not being useless.

Imagine a substack post, as these forums were based on, where someone asks for support with a batch script and someone suggests using a sticky note taped to the monitor. It gets downvoted but no one offers any countering support.
No one would use the site for support anymore. It’s clearly not with helpful information, and the person looking at it would not know but just see what looks like an unkind user base.

Right but if you disagree shouldn’t that be vocalized otherwise the downvote doesn’t make sense and people don’t know what the countering opinion is?
I get it’s not everyone’s responsibility to respond but… It doesn’t really make sense as just a tool to show disagreement and provide diversity in the comments.

But someone making an opinionated statement, sure at the top level the votes just act as a miniature poll but beyond that I’m not sure I see it’s usefulness as a conversationary tool.

You are making up a stance that I don’t have to think you are controlling the conversation.

Also, adding times did not make your position any more clear. Please clarify your evidence and what you are taking away from that article.

Yes, and how well do people treat Mark Zuckerbot?

Yeah I think big level at the feed, down votes help control what is interesting conversation pieces and not and then in the comments it should be related to how on topic or useful or fun to the conversation presented by the original item.

There is some extremely childish behavior on Lemmy in regards to downvotes and in response to them as well.

They audited less than 40 fewer than smaller businesses?

What?
I think you misread the article or I am having a hard time parsing the meaning of that sentence.

During the 5 year gap from 2019 to 2024 they only flagged 22 ultra wealthy companies cases vs 848 flags for small companies and that doesn’t mean a full audit was done just referred. And that’s the 40 times fewer, the number of flagged criminal referrals.

I really don’t think you read that. I think you really are looking for bias confirming items and even gloss over presented data.
Take a second and breath and think that it might be ok to progress your views beyond what you already think you know.
Or please point out to me your evidence?

Me laughing proves the DNC is a progressive party? I don’t think that logic is very robust.

I think it makes you feel more confident in disregarding the arguments of others which is the point you want to conclude but it’s unrelated to your previous point and that’s searching for evidence to back your preconceived notion which is also bad science.

Plus this isn’t science or a polling sample it’s a conversation.
So much wrong with how you interact with others.