The old Soviet builds are pretty Spartan. In fairness they’re like 60 years old now, but yikes.

But, even at that, still a hell of a lot better than being homeless.

If you wanna know what it looks like to have a city own the utilities and operate them for the public interest, one can look at Medicine Hat, Alberta.

I guess this is why I was confused. The comment you were replying to was saying the justification for impor/exports existing simultaneously was based on the geographical (aka logistical) efficiencies of moving different products to different facilities with different needs.

You appeared to me to be rejecting that justification.

I’m trying to understand your line of thinking and it seems to necessitate accepting that oil isn’t moving between inputs and outputs at the most cost effective way, which would necessitate oil and gas companies intentionally working in a way that isn’t about maximizing profit.

Am I misunderstanding your premise in such a way that I’m inappropriately needing to bake that in?

I’m not from the US

The world is burning. Now. With the justice systems you’re alluding to.

“If you act like Assad you’ll end up like Assad”, they said to the guys who ended Assad for being Assad.

That agrees with my preconceived biases, for sure.

Beyond that, I think it’s possible that the “sting” of negative reactions, or the perceived lack of positive reactions my possibly shape how people think.

And, you can buy that kind of engagement in bulk if you have money. You can train people to engage in different thought patterns buy buying upvotes (buying them dopamine), that would be my hypothesis.

If that’s true, I think the inherent danger from a sociological standpoint could not possibly be understated.

Causal relationship between social media and degradation of basic critical thinking skills. Not just tiktok, anything in which people are primarily communicating asynchronously and has a “reward” (likes, upvotes, etc)

So Reddit/Lemmy for sure included

Close. The founder told the CEO if he raised the price on the hotdog “I will fucking kill you”.

So, who really gets the credit here is up to you.

The person who threatened to kill the CEO if the CEO fucked his customers, or the CEO who didn’t fuck his customers out of self-preservation?

You’re going to have to explain to me how it’s justifying racism to say that someone being a bad worker and the colour of one’s skin are completely unrelated to one another.

The solution I was referring to was disrupting malformed logic in thought patterns (racism).

Reconsider my original premise:

“Hey we’ve got the laziest middle Easterners working for us, they’re all so shitty”

If you respond with “The real question is why does the company hire shitty people?”

You’re not refuting the malformed logic. You’re not disrupting the thought pattern. You’re introducing new variables and shifting blame.

Carry that logic forward from the point of view of the person asking the question, they’ll say “wow, you’re right: we should stop hiring people from the middle east”

Which, I would assume isn’t the direction you intended to steer someone’s thinking.

Again, it isn’t complicated and it’s stilly to make it complicated. This person observes two things and then connects the two as being related (quality of worker vs skin colour). They just aren’t related. That’s it. If they’re a bad worker they’re a bad worker, why ask someone to reject what they’re seeing with their own eyes? It just isn’t BECAUSE of skin colour.

It quite literally is the malformed logic being: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Nowhere else in logic do people refute that fallacy by trying to introduce new mitigating arguments. It’s fundamentally flawed from the outset and can be directly refuted.

Racism doesn’t reduce complexity, it introduces complexity.

If you take two independent things, and then invent a rule to connect them. It’s strictly additional complexity

And then for some reason people try and combat it by layering on ADDITIONAL complexity. “Have you considered there might be circumstances you are unaware of?” Like, now we’ve gone from two unrelated things that we’ve invented a relationship for to that plus some unobserved moral “dark matter” which we can’t see but postulate could exist.

The simplest solution is the best.

“Hey we’ve got the laziest middle Easterners working for us, they’re all so shitty”

“Yeah sounds like they’re shitting the bed at work. Don’t think it has anything to do with where they’re from, though”

To be honest, I actually don’t really appreciate human moderation, so that’s probably biasing my position.

I can block communities. I can block users. I can set word filters.

If I block someone, I never have to hear from them again. If a moderator does, they’ll be back with a new account, and then I DO have to hear from them.

I’d far prefer a “federated” and crowdsourced mechanism to layer onto an extremely lightly moderated foundational layer.

If someone, or someones, want to curate a filter list that aligns with my sensibilities, awesome, I’ll opt in. I’ll contribute. If I bump into unresolvable issues with other filter curators I’ll fork the filter.

I don’t need or want a tiny subset of users working full time for free getting burnt out or going on power trip crusades.

The quote I was referencing is this:

“People - Please don’t make the life of your mods a living hell. Anything that is celebrating violence is going to get taken down - if not from us, then from reddit. I think all the mods understand that there is a high level of frustration and antipathy towards insurance and insurance execs, but we also understand that murdering people in the streets is not good. We are a public group of medical professionals, we still need to act like that.”

The line about making their lives a living hell?

If you ever feel the need to type that in reference to your volunteer Reddit moderation… Stand up, go outside.

Why the fuck would the moderators care about how much work it is to remove the posts.

“If I push on this, I will alienate myself from this clearly mentally unstable patient and at that point there is no chance to help them”

It’s literally how mental health professionals are trained.

I’m entirely empathetic to your position.

Internet conversation is intrinsically imperfect. The contract of semantics isn’t sufficient.

I think in so many senses of the word, you’re right. Technically right. But not practically responding to the practical intention of the communication.

No.

But if you preface them with qualifiers that means something, no? Are those words meaningless embellishment or are they intended to provide additional meaning, and if so, what?

I don’t think most people have strictly concluded anything, they’ve just acknowledged the a significant probability.

You’re on a semantic crusade.