top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 86 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's common to advise young people that Working hard and grinding when you are young, then having relatively calm and relaxation life for the rest of the life.

I think the relaxation never comes, if you work to death right now then still there is a pretty good chance you would be doing same 10 years from now. I believe ther should be balance between work and life no matter what age.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    About relaxation. I've found that I can't relax untill I've chilled for 2 weeks. Until then I have a wheel in my head that just won't stop spinning. But after that 2 weeks I transform.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 46 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 43 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    That "growth" is inherently a good thing to do and if you aren't trying to grow as a person everyday then you're not living 'correctly'

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Can't even "grow" when your parents destroyed your self-confidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Excuse my curiosity. Do you think learning and experiencing new things is not an important aspect of life? Or maybe you just have a different definition of growth than me?

    A life without would be stagnant and boring to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago*

    I believe where we differ is the degree. I do still learn new things for fun and whatnot, but if there is ever a time I am NOT doing that (besides work, sleep, or helping society as a whole in some other way), I've been conditioned to feel guilty. Like, if I'm not growing at all times, then I am personally spitting on the graves of all my ancestors

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (11 children)

    That attention span exists as a relevant concept and that people are ruining it with technology.

    If our attentiveness is struggling it is undoubtedly because life is harder and crueler these days.

    Our attention, if we are being treated humanely and sustainability by the societal conditions around us, is fine (we aren't though, this being the issue).

    edit Same thing with all the "kids these days" things about kids not being able to focus, being a kid these days has got to feel hopeless in a million ways that are too crushing to focus on not the least of which are the adults around you condescending your fears of the future even as they destroy it.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 10 months ago*

    I can think of two relevant things that bear upon your attention here.

    Stress, which makes your attention kind of jump around.

    Temptation, which makes your attention go places without you choosing it. It's a kind of loss of control.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    life is harder and crueler these days.

    I think you just found the popular belief that I disagree with.

    Compared to most of human history, life now is pretty good. This article uses childhood mortality (globally 4.4% versus 50% for most of human history) to make the point. There's still lots of room to improve - the EU has a tenth the global average - but humanity has made incredible progress on that front over the past two centuries.

    Looking at a smaller time scale, the human development index is trending upward everywhere since 1990.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    facepalm have you tried looking up at the real world around you recently?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    No. I live under a rock and haven't noticed that there's a global increase in far-right movements, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and a race between Sam Altman and Elon Musk to see who can boil the oceans faster to make better slop factories.

    Bad news makes for good headlines, and we absolutely have serious, pressing problems worldwide. Despite that, ask yourself if you'd rather live in 1925 than 2025. 1825? 1725? Think about how the average person lived and died in those times. When was life actually easier and kinder for most people?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Oh my god, this attitude that someone is not allowed to be happy about some things because other things are bad drives me up the fucking wall.

    Of course you're going to be depressed and anxious and feel like the world is ending and there's nothing that can be done besides wait for full societal collapse if you set these rules that you can't enjoy the good until things are perfect.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

    No but the future that was possible for the older people around me in my country is gone and global collapse is accelerating, things are getting worse... what the hell does 1925, 1825 or 1725 got to do with it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Why would I continue this conversation with you if you're going to downvote my replies? That's rude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Why would I not downvote a comment I consider missed the essential point on something I am passionate about and feel materially impacts us all?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    The effect of a downvote is that fewer people see the comment. If you think fewer people should see my comments, I can assist you with that by not posting them.

    If you feel I've missed your point rather than understanding and disagreeing with it, feel free to articulate it more clearly. Your claim as I understood it was life is harder and crueler (for most people, most places) these days (than at some point in the past).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    (than at some point in the past)

    No, than the previous adjacent moments in past, not some random arbitrary point selected so far back in time that our lives would look radically different and the comparison between the two points becomes dubiously relevant.

    I think you should continue to post comments and let everybody decide on them collectively, why would I want you to silence yourself on this particular topic? If you didn't make this type of comment someone else would have and this branch of the conversation would likely have happened anyways. Now it has and people can upvote/downvote to reflect how they feel. I don't know about you but I still read downvoted comments? I am a curious person and there are many like me!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I think most people have always had short attention spans but technology has taken advantage of that to captivate us. History just tells the story of those who lengthened their attention spans on purpose. History is rarely the story of common people, it is often told by the exceptional about the exceptional and this distorts our perception of humanity significantly

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    I think lots of people believe that the ends can justify the means.

    But to me, that expression means the same thing as, "Whatever causes a good outcome must not be bad." And I not only disagree with it, I don't even think it makes sense.

    I heard a story about a guy who was stabbed in a mugging and during surgery for the stabbing, found out that he had cancer, which saved his life.

    But nobody is going to go to the judge during the mugger's trial, and say that his decision to stab the guy was "justified," and so he should be released to stab again with his completely justified stabbing history.

    No, the things that are justifiable are those which are good and informed actions. You can't justify bad or ignorant actions simply because of luck.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I agree with you, but I think your example is lacking as the stabber purely intended to mug and not uncover cancer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I see what you're saying, that there are two cases. One where the ends is the goal of the person who used the means, and one where the ends is not the goal of the person who used the means. I only mentioned the latter in my comment.

    But from my perspective, if the stabber purely intended to uncover cancer, and for some reason they actually had the expertise and knowledge to know that that specific person had cancer, and this was somehow the only way to prove it, then the action itself is inherently altruistic. From my perspective, it wouldn't be less altruistic even if the person turned out not to have cancer. So, I don't think it would count as the ends justifying the means.

    If the same stabber, with the same expertise and knowledge, actually had multiple ways of achieving the ends, like they could have talked about it rather than stabbing, but they chose the stabbing route, then I think you can't say that the stabbing was justified, regardless of whether the cancer was discovered.

    There may be other cases worth digging into. I'm sure there are lots of examples I didn't think of, but I'd be surprised if they were convincing to me. The reason is that, my experience has taught me that good ends are most predictably the results of just and informed actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    But it doesn't mean "whatever causes a good outcome must not be bad".

    It means that sometimes for the greater good, you have to pay a price.

    Think of the trolley problem, would you kill 1 person to save 5? Many people would say yes. They're not saying murder is good, but the ends justify the means

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 38 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Cynicism isn't inherently more mature than believing that things can be made better. For a lot of people "everything is fucked, nothing matters" is a way of absolving themselves from the responsibility and personal risk involved in actively trying to make the world a better place.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    I agree with this. People think being pessimistic is more realistic than being optimistic. They think spinning things as negative is automatically more realistic than the positive spin. In reality, realism sees both sides and adjusts one's behaviour to make the best out of everything

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Pick literally any religion.

    Pick literally any belief.

    That.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [+] [S] -19 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    We don't care about God here. You got anything we care about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 10 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago*

    Karma is only the law of cause and effect nothing more, anyone saying it is anything else is misguided. When people start thinking in terms of good or bad coming to you for doing good or bad it is only as much as you have built systems in your life for good or bad coming to you, like not choosing to cause a problem for someone else because you feel bad means they aren't going to snap back at you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Karma exists. Western karma is nonsense.

    It's not supposed to fairness/consequences in this life but rather across lifetimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    It's fine for you to believe but I see it as totally made up to keep people in line.

    When we die we're dead and don't care because we are no more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    You might be right, but you don't actually know that for certain. If your consciousness emerged from nothingness once, there's no reason why it could not do so again (albeit probably in a completely unrecognizable form).

    Personally, I am agnostic as to whether reincarnation is a thing or not, but honestly, when taking the numbers into account, oblivion sounds like a much better deal than spending my next billion lifetimes as a bug that lasts for only a brief time before being eaten in one of countless agonizing ways. (There is a reason why the Eastern religions that believe in reincarnation tend to emphasize that the ultimate goal is to escape it.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I mean, why not know for certain? We are made up from electrical impulses between our synapses and literally cease to exist on power down.

    Proving this of course goes into philosophy and belief which - as an Autist - eludes me in the reasoning.

    However I might be one of the few who can be pretty certain about it, since I died once already (heart stopped) and the following year I had to build myself up again not only physically but also from the mind in an indescribable way.

    So if that had progressed further I am very certain parts of what defines me as a person would've been lost.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] -14 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Meh. I don't see that belief much on Lemmy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    You didn't specify it had to be a popular belief on Lemmy. 🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] [S] -17 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    It would be pointless otherwise.

    You'd just get a bunch of popular complaints about what those other people believe.

    It's what's popular here, and dissent from that, that's interesting

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    You should've specified that's what you were looking for, then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    I disagree with the belief that all police officers are automatically bad people

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    A friend of mine is a cop & a nice guy. I asked him why the hell he became a cop of all things & he said "this way, I know there's at least one cop in existence who's not a racist asshole."

    I countered with "Oh, so you're just a regular asshole, then?" An he said "No sir; I am an ass hat. An asshole is an ass the whole time. If people are cool, I'm cool with them, but if someone wants to be an ass, I can put my ass hat on to match their energy."

    I can respect that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago

    One of my friends was a rural police officer, which I didn't know. Dude is super friendly and queer. Unfortunately he had a lot of terribly sad stories of AD&D and DUIs. He finally called it quits when one woman rode up an industrial garage door to impress her friend and got lethally caught in it. Found her friend holding her legs to try and save her. Too many terrible things happened to nice but terribly misguided (or drunk) people.

    I think that job hurt his heart.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I have cops in my family. They're actually all really great people and weirdly positive parents.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    If they know a bad cop, and didn't do anything about them, they're just as guilty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I love how you blame everyone. It must feel freeing. And you must be hell on jaywalkers and people who don't use their signal light.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago*

    LMAO. I apply the same bullshit they use on civilians. Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, you're a fucking duck right?

    "You're in a high drug area, you must be buying/selling"

    "You're hanging out with known criminals, you must be doing similar activities"

    A cop covers and looks the other way for other cops? He's just as guilty as the corrupt cop.

    Keep 👅 🥾

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 12 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    good things do have a way of coming back around, but that's more so because...well...that's just kind of how communities as a whole function, people working together to common goal, shouldering each others burdens etc.

    bad deeds definitely don't go punished on their own though, that...takes someone with the agency/time to actually punish bad people

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    That there is a correct way to live or that objective morality exists

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    That the cereal should be poured before the milk.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    But cereral first is only sane and moral. We can't have a floating mound. And that's to say nothing of volumetric concerns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    You sprinkle some more cereal on the milk whenever you run out of cereal.

    The whole point is to not have soggy cereal

    Really depends on preference and cereal type

    It's less of an argument between milk first vs second, but people that like soggy vs crunchy cereal.

    The important thing is to not add too much cereal before you can eat it all. Adding in cereal last just helps make sure you don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    My uncle's ex-wife would pour a bowl of frosted flakes, pour milk on it, put the bowl in the refrigerator, then eat it the next day.

    I don't think that's why they got divorced, but I've always believed it was a contributing factor...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    That a hot dog is not a taco

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    Hey, sorry for coming back a week later. But is your username in anyway referencing the ska dance from the nineties?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    People argue back and forth whether capitalism or socialism/communism is a superior system and they are all wrong. Those concepts are just tools. Saying one economic system applies to all situations is as silly as saying the only tool you need to build a house is a hammer.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

    it's more about which one is better for more situations, no? it is much harder for different situations in the same area to dynamically decide which economic system is better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Not really. It's entirely possible to pick and choose. We chose a socialist model for fire department because the capitalist model proved disastrous. Many countries successfully did the same for healthcare, retirement, and all sorts of things. At the same time, capitalism is great when you want a million choices on TV to watch or a grocery store with a whole aisle of different types of cookies.

    To me, the difference is the impact of failures. If someone starts a company making a new type of cookie and it proves not to be profitable, it goes bankrupt. Unfortunate, but ultimately not a big deal. If someone has cancer and curing them isn't profitable, you can't just give up. That person's life is more important than profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    welfare capitalism is still capitalism as even firefighters are still subjugated by class and capital

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    If the essentials of life are all shifted to "welfare capitalism" the power of class and capital to subjugate is greatly diminished. Add in mass union membership and it gets even better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    let's use your example of firefighters. the obvious subjugation is the government, when looking at its budget, diverting funds away to pet policies and luxuries (not to mention Robert Moses–style redlining), which is how you have volunteer firefighters that cease all activities at night when you needed them to handle a 4AM electrical backyard fire where i grew up.

    the less obvious subjugation is capitalism itself. when the firefighters walk home under this "socialism", their problems of survival are not solved. they have to take their capital into the nearest grocer and be subject to the horrors of the market: the nearest walmart, the #1 shrink on communities today, replacing the mom-and-pop of memories and community gatherings with a well-oiled, prices machine that runs at a loss until it becomes the only shop (or only competing with similar price machines) in town, at which point it maximizes its profit margin and sells the same cheap items at a markup just enough to be purchasable under welfare assistance. firefighters, historically poorly compensated for their public service, are forced to limit themselves to walmart's stale options and other working class horrors. this sticks you with the difficult choice of either increasing regulation—risking further government discrimination and costs that burden firefighter funding—or maintaining the status quo. you've got every industry risking safety, health, and quality to do things cheaper, and the people relying on regulation and inspection that can never get through every nook and cranny to defend the consumer instead of eliminating the perverted incentive that is capitalism. the final alternative to combining firefighter socialism with capitalism here is to distribute food and other essentials instead of salary, which uh i don't think is a good idea if legends of government rations and their poor variety hold. maybe when the government is run by omniscient telepaths...

    i agree with your last sentence, though. i support syndicalism, which needs to go further—into governance—than just membership. i'll admit that you could call a syndicalist society capitalist which isn't something i've thought of before

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I think public conversations are made of simplistic ideas. Maybe because they're stronger. Easier to convey and digest.

    So people may think deep and complex but societies think shallow and simple. Something like that.

    One of the downsides of democracy no doubt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›