this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
1155 points (95.5% liked)

memes

10450 readers
2286 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

To spell it out again, not everything has to be done on the internet. Many people go on thinking 'out with the old in with the new' without ever considering scope and practicality. If you suddenly became manager of an office building with a complete pneumatic tube system your first instinct might be to gut the pneumatic tubes and do everything over email. That's an OK thought but should that really be your first instinct? Most people wouldn't even understand how pneumatic tubes work in the first place. Wouldn't it be more prudent to to understand what the tubes are there for. Why they've lasted 60+ years. If the building is already wired with ethernet and has internet connection what should it matter if you use both keeping the tubes in place to continue their purpose?

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Okay, sure? That was always allowed. Again, "People should behave differently than they do" without any proposed method of bringing about whatever "differently" is, is just impotent platitude. That's why I keep reiterating "incentivize or force". Without one of those two pressures, people will continue to make individual decisions about their behavior, including which things they choose to do on the Internet, like they have been doing the whole time. Some will choose to do things on the Internet which can be done sufficiently other ways, others will choose to use simpler technologies.

When you start talking about how restraint would be advantageous, without any concept of how to incentivize or force said restraint, you're just becoming old-man-yells-at-cloud.jpg.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

When you start talking about how restraint would be advantageous, without any concept of how to incentivize or force said restraint, you’re just becoming old-man-yells-at-cloud.jpg.

I would challenge that. Say tomorrow I invented the eat-o-matic 5000 a top of the line eating utensil. Built in wifi, self cleaning, tracks how much food your eat, easy to manufacture, biodegradable, comes with a native streaming service that allows you to stream your eating experience to friends and family, affordable, etc.

Do you think in everyone would throw away their forks and knifes immediately and start using the eat-o-matic 5000? How about in 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?

Maybe the eat-o-matic is that good. I tend to believe forks and knives wouldn't go anywhere, though. I also know forks and knives are already not the only technology that exists and the fact that one utensil isn't ubiquitous proves that incentives and force are not the only factors at play.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like a broken record:

Yes, obviously, people are allowed to make their own choices. Not using the flashiest new toys and services is allowed. Acknowledging that fact is not useful. You telling people what they should and shouldn't do is not going to have a societal effect.

If you would like to propose some regulatory or incentive policy to nudge people toward simpler technologies, then that is a useful conversation. But just stating your opinion? Old man yells at cloud.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, all this just to say I shouldn't have an opinion?

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not saying that your opinion shouldn't exist, but some restraint would be advantageous.

Unless you think that statement is overly reductive, simplifying a nuanced subject to a flippant, self-indulgent remark that accomplishes nothing but ego-stroking

Some opinions provide valuable hypotheses which can promote thoughtful discussion regardless of their validity, like "A value-added tax would benefit the working class". Some opinions are hollow and useless, and serve only to make the commenter feel smugly clever for stating the obvious, like "Israelis and Palestinians should just get along".

Endless promotion of the latter is probably one of the most unnecessary uses of the Internet, muttering to oneself alone at home is a sufficient technology for that purpose.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sounds like an opinion to me. Of course your opinion is more valid because you said it. Since you would never be a hypocrit incapable of self reflection. Certainly, at the very least, would be able to detect sarcasm. If by chance you came across it.

Let me know if you need me to explain it because I know how hard it is for you to comprehend simple ideas.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Certainly, at the very least, would be able to detect sarcasm. If by chance you came across it.

The irony.

Unless you think that statement is overly reductive, simplifying a nuanced subject to a flippant, self-indulgent remark that accomplishes nothing but ego-stroking

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Two can play

Some opinions are hollow and useless, and serve only to make the commenter feel smugly clever for stating the obvious

Flinch much?

So then you agree?