I mean there’s supply chain stuff, too. Isn’t that why Toyota dragged it’s feet so long? They were also pushing hydrogen over straight EV, weren’t they?

I still have a positive view of the technology, it’s the people who demand that they control every aspect of it that I’m weary of.

No, but plenty of other people do, and the person that shot him clearly hasn’t been doing much else to “help”.

So, either put your money where your mouth is, or stop spouting the same demagoguery bullshit and find an actually useful thing to suggest.

Capitalism is this. This was always the logical conclusion when wealth and success were so intrinsically linked.

What, like preaching a message of peace to its billion plus followers?

Sadly, yes.

We may begin to heal from all the hertz we’ve received…

Does it ascribe blame that way? I don’t think saying “You’re too extreme in your views” necessarily means “You think people shouldn’t have to suffer” and equating them is ultimately going to lead to the exact polarization the commenter is talking about.

You don’t defeat fascism by becoming a “good” fascist.

Literally the argument the article is criticizing. Don’t compare one country to another like that. Sure you can take specific examples of how something doesn’t work in certain circumstances, but doing a direct compare just to say “At least we’re not as bad as ____” is ultimately defeatist.

Because it makes every argument it’s part of generic. It’s just a cheap and easy way to make something that automatically agrees with you. No need to put effort or thought into it, just spawn an argument that supports you without anything to back it up.

I think the implication is that they are too eager to have access to fire. The entire thing is somehow both ham-fisted and arcane at the same time. Quite the line to skirt.

Only if it works, if it doesn’t it just leads to confusion and frustration.

Sounds like someone who gets set to always go to voicemail.

I would argue the only legitimate use of AI slop would be against the use of AI slop… but that would be wrong. There’s no justifiable usage of AI slop.

“You didn’t use AI, the person whose content you’re spreading did, so it’s fine!”

It still propagates the use of AI, especially in the form of propaganda (even if it’s an argument most of us can agree with). This can only be bad.

It’s very easy to justify your opinions when, if someone tries to take a counter position, “Oh, I didn’t mean that situation so I’m still right”.

The problem with this isn’t that they’re saying that problems exist… it’s that it’s so simplistic and overly-broad that it attacks broadly without ever aiming at anyone. You can just say “I wasn’t aiming for you” without ever specifying specifically what you did mean that anyone trying to bring context or have an actual discussion about the problem (and thus find a way to make things better) can be seen as just being argumentative and part of that “toxic masculinity”.

Talking about it and trying to find root causes, and maybe a way to fix the issue, is not perpetuating this problem. Whining about it then shutting anyone down who does the former is perpetuating it. All it does is breed divisiveness and tribalism.

“People I often disagree with taking a stance opposite of mine, and thus are wrong”

What does it matter when people who use this as an excuse to divide people just make up bullshit to justify their argument no matter what people respond with?

Ah yes, as we all know, a thing can only ever have two states. No nuance can ever exist 😤

I doubt those are hand made.