yep i completely agree. even just considering warranties & right to repair stuff alone accounts for absurdly unnecessary ecological impact. when we consider the direct environmental harm + total carbon footprint of mining something out of the ground, transporting, refining - AT THE SAME TIME AS THROWING IT OUT IN THE TRASH - due to planned obsolescence, anti-repair strategies or just terrible waste recovery programs.

it’s also insane seeing the attempts at green-washing greedy decisions (eg. apple making customers pay extra for a charger, apparently as a green initiative) meanwhile they’re deliberately impeding device repair efforts, again purely for commercial greed, and this time very blatantly harmful for the environment.

many electronic devices used to come with repair manuals for the customer to read. now it’s the opposite, companies going out of their way to pressure chip makers TO NOT EVEN SELL CHIPS TO ANYONE FOR REPAIR PURPOSES. apart from antithetical to the apparent principles of free market, it’s just ridiculously unnecessarily harmful to the environment.

(they also love to suggest modern electronics are to small/complex/whatever to repair these days. and in absolute extreme cases that’s fairly true, but in alot of cases it absolutely is NOT impossible. specialised repair equipment used to be crazy expensive, and you can get started easier than ever. but still, it’s becoming a niche, and sometimes illegal [DMCA], it whereas it used to be the norm)

there are too many people, to live the way we are. and the way we are living is shameful. what insanity would prioritise Many Not Existing so A Few can keep living a shameful life?

population distribution is anti-correlated with carbon footprint: “Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%”

it’s not about population, it’s so A HANDFUL of overly-privileged people can continue to waste energy on eg. nice frosty transparent dialog boxes serving them slop advertising on their smartphone as they sit on the toilet - so that MANY MANY other people end up either not existing or starving just so they can enjoy the privilege <insert applause>

Although it is necessary to reduce population in general

is it?

there’s perhaps too many people to live as wastefully as we do, oughtn’t we reduce the waste then?

which is why i’d say clearly identify the source so people can discern.

afaict if you want to fairly criticise kagi its for not moving fast enough on adding clear source referencing & adding methods for users to filter out source types.

is there something i’m missing? are there other reasons to suspect bad faith on kagi’s part?

any nation’s major search engine is going to be turning up propaganda.

imo it’s better to include it & state where it came from so people can discern.

personally i don’t believe the entire population of any country are all bad people and increasingly siloing global citizens from eachother is only going to increase the kinds of toxic nationalism which dangerous regimes use as fuel

the experimental phase of plebs having computing autonomy is winding down. alas, this is one of the many signs

but how do you know whether to trust that information

test it, break it, see what happens.

and the translation will get progressively shitter the further into the story you go cos the compute resources start getting rate limited lol

nearly every single criticism against “science” is rooted not in a claim made by a scientist, but by the media and politicians completely fucking misrepresenting what the scientists said.

afaik it was originally about freedom from oppression. as with so many things, it has been hijacked by bigots and they’ve twisted it to now mean their freedom to oppress others.

• Mitch Hedberg
• Wanda Sykes

corporate koolaid frequently masquerades as ‘knowledge’, and is parroted rather than built up from first principles.

compared to reddit, an average lemmy user would tend more towards the latter than the former.

be on the lookout for the cognitive dissonance which can precede the realisation you’ve been parroting corporate propaganda. it’s ok, it happens to all of us, but the sooner we realise the better for everyone.

i think i can answer this

personally, when i first encountered graphene’s radical statements about the terrible security landscape we’re all subjected to, i reacted quite negatively & assumed they were crazy.

then i actually check the technical details of their claims, and fuck me it turns out to be SCARILY correct.

most people don’t actually bother with the second part. and you end up with a classic “shoot the messenger” scenario, where the bearer of bad news is equated with the bad news itself & punished by the mob (because they feel it’s easier than actually facing the uncomfortable reality of the bad news).

that scenario can only play out for so long before the messenger gets sick of being shot every day & reacts badly to the crowd. then the crowd points at their poor reaction & uses it as further “evidence” against their character.

well said!

imo it’s not a coincidence the public are being steered away from supporting graphene. it’s one thing to see the general public do this (they will do whatever their told), but seeing countless people who supposedly should know better its quite disturbing.

admittedly i’m not up to date on all the drama, but i thought that graphene saw themselves as victims of alt attacks?

some of it is kind of inevitable when you see how far ahead from everyone else they are technically and when people shitting on their work just aren’t at their (technical) level it seems to be very draining. and eventually lead to dramas.

yeh but nah

they infiltrate our environmental groups. legally and illegally coerce us & our our “leaders”. have been systematically attacking, undermining & removing funding for renewables & climate research for decades. environmental protesters are “legally” assaulted, kidnapped, beaten & sometimes killed by their hired goons, meanwhile neo-nazis march with impunity.

it’s not simply a matter of them offering one alternative and just letting the market decide. they engage in unbelievable levels of corruption, coercion, deception, even genocide to steal natural resources from first nations people.

meanwhile the public, barely keeping their heads above water, exploited, subjugated & worn to the bone, oftimes struggling to survive, make almost the only non-choice they can barely even choose from.

yes the majority are to blame, for alot, but also recall we’re talking about an average, likely poorly educated person going up against billion dollar brainwashing machinery (oftimes utilising research paid for with our tax dollars initially performed for therapeutic use, now weaponised in a twisted perversion of their original intent)

like you aren’t wrong. but there is alot more to the story.

carlin is certainly on point in his quote you cited, and you are right this is perhaps the most difficult to reconcile aspect.

let us weigh this alongside another poignant quote of his:

The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you.

for alot of people their relationship with windows is like that of an abusive partner. which is why you see alot of the same excuses pop up

honestly surprised to see so many downvotes.

I’ve been trying to compact my writing lately, and perhaps failed to communicate clearly. because i really felt like i’d already pre-agreed with everything you wrote when i said

society currently seems to project an emotionally stunted image onto the male identity. but it’s important to note this is a sickness in current society rather than anything inherently “male”.

obviously i didn’t communicate properly, because imo that’s in perfect agreement with what you said here

how we’re socialised to handle our feelings also plays a big role

this is what i meant about society projecting an ‘incomplete’ image onto the male identity. i want to stress here, this isn’t a statement about any man, or even men as a group. imo it has nothing to do with “maleness” and everything to do with an impossibly hamstrung identity being thrust onto people. by impossible i mean it’s literally impossible for any human to exist as an emotional shadow like that. no human can do it & we’re expecting 50% of the population to magically achieve it. whatcouldgowrong.jpg

i’ve spent quite some time trying to work out exactly where it comes from, i’m still not sure but i feel like a big dose of victorian era repression sure didn’t help, plus perhaps alot of unprocessed trauma from the men who went to WW1 and experienced an entirely unprecedented form of PTSD en masse (what at the time was called shellshock) those men who came home brought it into their families and became our fathers fathers fathers etc etc. it’s definitely intergenerational imo.

i also think as society progresses technologically, there is less need for ‘male brute force’ to ‘provide’, so it will naturally create a bit of a vacuum in the perceived “male role”. i can easily imagine an alternate history where something positive and strong had filled this vacuum instead of the poisoned version we got.

i personally deeply do not believe it is something inherent in men, and i think this is supported by the stats you raise which shows a disparity in the distribution vs world average.

rather i very much see this as a deep flaw in our current society, men are emotionally hamstrung and have dangerously impossible emotional expectations placed on them (again, this isn’t the fault of any one gender or group, it is society at large to blame here). (and of course equally insane but different expectations are thrust onto all genders)

a huge part of the problem imo is when boys are taught not to cry - actually wait, it’s even worse, they’re taught “boys don’t cry”, this is an unbelievable absurdity. crying is natural, normal & healthy. not only denying boys & men this natural emotional outlet, but tangling it up with the idea that “boys don’t do it” therefore if one does, some part of their supposed identity is under threat. it’s quite simply unbelievably toxic, it’s literally poison. and. it. hurts. everyone.

but that’s fundamentally why i think calling it ‘The male loneliness epidemic’ is hurtful to everyone. alongside all the usual ragebait hooks, there’s the sleight of hand of reducing a monumental issue to a fragment of the actual scale of the problem.

Short Answer

imo the rise of loneliness effects both women & men about equally in terms of scope.

the push to strongly gender the ‘epidemic’ one way or the other is classic ragebait.

Longer Answer

Yes society currently seems to project an emotionally stunted image onto the male identity. but it’s important to note this is a sickness in current society rather than anything inherently “male”.

and it’s causing alot more suffering for all genders than just ‘loneliness’. calling it The male loneliness epidemic is just loaded with so many hooks, it’s just classic bait.

men vs women is “powerful” for ragebait because it’s literally half the population vs the other half.