ochi_chernye

This is something I do, so I’ll take a crack at it—though, bear in mind, it might be total bullshit.

It’s a defense mechanism. Many popular things are—in my estimation—objectively terrible. Every time something utterly devoid of merit (and often actively detrimental to the public good) is generally agreed to be a popular sensation, the connection I feel to my fellow human beings takes a hit.

I want to believe in people—in society. But I’m clearly a judgmental sob. So maybe by avoiding the popular things, I’m trying not to further my own alienation.

I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but what the fuck is normal? Nobody’s really normal. Even the so-called neurotypical are riddled with undiagnosed disorders. Normalcy is just a social fiction. Don’t let it limit your options.

I think that you’re probably right. I also think I may be projecting a bit, and conflating my country’s apathetic embrace of fascism with my own executive dysfunction. Seems all of a piece. Anyhow, thanks for the words.

The headline is a little ambiguous, but he didn’t give in; they relaxed the dress code.

The thing is, it can be really hard to accurately assess why you feel an aversion to things, and whether or not that aversion is misplaced. I can come up with scads of seemingly reasonable objections to, for example, going to the gym. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t benefit from it.

Overcoming an innate aversion that you’ve convinced yourself is a part of who you are can be life-changing.

The big caveat there is that knowing things doesn’t change the world. Scads of people are acutely aware of the problems facing society—maybe more than at any time in history. Vanishingly few feel empowered to do anything about it.

I’m not pro-ignorance by any means; education is the silver bullet. But we urgently need to find better ways of translating our spectacular surfeit of knowledge into individually actionable mechanisms of social change.

I can see how it’s easier to fuck someone than to actively listen and (at least pretend to) empathize with them. It’s easier to go without the former than the latter, as well.

I generally agree with your point, but the MIC is a bad example; both parties are equally happy selling bombs to murderers.

Like every single person who has ever claimed that downvotes proved their point, you are making an insupportable claim. There are at least two things I can point to in your comment that could provoke someone to downvote it, even if they agree with your other points.

You had 4 years to make a change, but you guys would rather just blame people that wants actual improvements and still doing so after you lost the election despite getting the candidate that you supported.

I think many commenters here would argue that at least some of the people who campaigned against Harris in the run-up to the election were not acting in good faith; certainly the comment you replied to implies this. It would therefore be inaccurate, in their view, to say that they’re blaming “people that wants actual improvements”.

It’s really funny to watch.

This kinda makes you sound like an asshole.

For the record, I agree that she was a bad candidate, and that the Democrats would have won the election if they offered real change, instead of rallying round the status quo as they so often have in my lifetime.

I have blocked at least one “videos” community, since I have no interest in watching anything masquerading as informative. I’ve been on Lemmy a bunch lately, so I can only assume that I’ve preemptively blocked the instance or community where it’s being posted.