There are needs and needs, I refuse to help a money begger unless is a close friend which I can control how is the best I can do for him, money being the last resource. Instead I always demand for social programs and services sustained by taxes to support those in real need (survival needs) unconditionally.
I would sleep much better if part of my tax contribution (together that of anybody in function of their resources) goes to grant the minimum for a "dignity survival" to any human being regardless of their returned contribution, with programs for reinsertion and mental support so they have the best chances to reach eventually a "dignity life".
And, if still they cannot but just "survive" for the rest of their lives, I still want to fund it and give them the security to do it with dignity until the very end.
I would prefer any ActivityPub instance, but press media (and in general private entities), to which scientific institutes intend diffusion, is moving to bluesky...
Nope, no stay silent about them at all, actions must be taken indeed, but stay silent to them: if you answer or react to his words you accept the dialogue, legitimating the value of a speech full of fallacies, from someone that does not speak for a prolific constructive exchange of ideas that may result in advancing the understanding of a situation regardless of the thesis but from someone that only say those words to echo those slogan-like fallacies for the long run strategy.
The more care we put in avoid working for their propaganda the better. I believe that media and personalities reactions would better be accompanied by the statement that is a speech so full of fallacies that is worthless consider the arguments exposed nor the apparent conclusions, therefore no dialogue effort has been carried out but an attempt of manipulation based on lies, what more can be the opinion but the inappropriateness of such behaviour?
I agree, they are recognised agents, so they should be invited, and I would turn on the microphone for them and wait patiently until they finished their speech within their rightful time, we play according to the rules, but then I would continue as if those minutes never existed, as a journalist I would provide the report of the real value of those irrelevant words and as a consumer I would treat their speech as useless as a child’s play as an adult blabbering, not too much to do with it, why isolate their catchy fallacies and amplify them? They do not contribute constructively to a coherent debate but exploit the system weaknesses. I believe that it starts in our individual choices.
I think this people have long already disqualified their ability to speech anything worth of coherent value, why keep listening them or take note of their words? They do not follow the rules of that game, is not possible to play on the same terms so that battleground is a distraction at best, a cancer at worst.
I think this people have long already disqualified their ability to speech anything worth of coherent value, why keep listening them or take note of their words? They do not follow the rules of that game, is not possible to play on the same terms so that battleground is a distraction at best, a cancer at worst.
Like it or not, but with agents prone to use military force around the corner we better prepare for it one way or another, either to fight back or to subdue, because deterrence is at the weakest point since decades and most of Europe has become unused to war efforts.
I personally hate to have to do this, strength countries mutual balanced dependence that makes this undesirable for both parts is my preferred choice over spending on military resources, but lacking of that tie with those agents around…
I see, my tip was thinking in meta/tiktok-like socials rather than reddit/stackoverflow-like. But I feel that it is not too much different. Probably the error was pouring so much knowledge in such “volatile” places (in the sense of user/community not really controlling it) in the first place, but aren’t human interactions already like that? Accept them as conversations lost in time, something always survive and returns, and new things always born. A pity, sure, but a part of life. In any case, it is quite unlikely to reach in a new place in barely a few years the same quantity of information than more than a decade of knowledge in old forums, yet I feel that pian piano people contributes to the shift… in the end we are humans which enjoy of social exchanges :D
The first step is to overcome the dependence of the common forum places, being able to renounce to them, remove your profile and learn to enjoy your life without them… only then you can happily drift into a less crowded and active community for ocasional wonders and quality instead of the saturation of engagement that “that” centralised social media offers, the peer pressure to be part of the main stream…
