JustHereForFood

I think that a huge problem is that these platforms are for free*. People got used to practically everything being free on the internet and now when paper print went out of the way in favor of digital, many don't want to pay for it. But journalism is not free. People work to write those articles and fact-check them. People who would provide that for free are most likely paid by somebody with an agenda. That is how we end up with so much disinformation on social media, even when it eventually is pointed out to be a lie it has already done a lot of damage. *yes, nothing is free, if it is, we are the most likely the product

Well, one is our enemy, one is an ally... Sure, Facebook and Twitter suck a lot too and have been infested with misinformation, so one has to be careful everywhere. I'm sure I sound like and old person (I am a Millenial), but it would be IMO best if all social media slowly went to history's junkyard. Still, I am much more vary of a totalitarian government that hasn't seen fair elections in decades.

I finished reading On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder. For those who don't know, he's a historian who specializes in Eastern and Central Europe and he wrote this book after the 2016 US election, mentioning parallels between the political situation today and back in the 1920's, 30's and 40's in Europe. I know how it looks, but I actually bought the book a while ago and started reading it before I knew how much it would be relevant again. But it certainly resonated a lot right now. Honestly, I would recommend this book as a required reading in schools in every country that wishes to remain democratic. It's not just a problem in the US, so many countries in Europe are having a crisis of democracy and honestly, It's even more shameful for us, since we went through all of that really not that long ago. One would think that humanity is at a stage when we are able to learn from our own history, but sadly it looks like we are still so damn stupid. That being said, the book is not really that depressing. The author gives us tips what to do to keep our integrity and stand against tyranny, even as regular people. Small things, like being kind to people, donate to what we believe in, support independent journalism, etc. If I have any complaint, it's how short it is, just around 100 pages. I've already started his new book, On Freedom, which is quite longer, we'll see if I like it just as much.

Thank you, andromeda! That's what I keep saying, it's exactly the same pattern as back then. I'm sure I'm probably already annoying with mentioning it, but I'm just so tired of seeing history repeat itself, step, after step, after step. Especially with the past being still pretty much within living memory. And I'm worried how much worse it can get with that idiot in charge of the most powerful country in the world, when he seems to be deciding foreign policy based on how well he sleeps that night. I was just listening to some interviews with political analysts and the moderator tried to joke that with Trump being so unpredictable, he might do something good or clever when we don't expect it ... none of the guests laughed.

I am 300% more worried about a Chinese company not only collecting data, but also having influence over so many people, especially young. Especially about elections and stuff like that. And even if not, this fucking trend of self-censorship it perpetuates (not really sure if it started there or elsewhere) would be reason enough to want it gone forever. Unalive, seggs, PDF file,... I have seen posts where people said that they've already heard students saying those words in schools and universities in real life and teachers being clueless what they mean. Censorship is bad enough, but to live in an era where people start doing it of their own free will. Aren't we already living with enough dystopian stereotypes? Somebody kill me. I'm sorry, unalive me.

Yes, these kinds of discussions can get pretty one-sided. It's already weird if people who write historical fiction want their characters to have attitudes of present times, but to change it for authors from the past? Why do people think it's progressive? How are we supposed to learn how far we have moved, if we can't see the comparison? Also, the attitudes now can change pretty fast, so any change might not be as effective in a few years anyway. Well, people voted for his two investments, Donald Trump and Jill Stein. Investing in both sides of the horseshoe seems to work. 🤮

No offence, I get your feeling and I don't want to derail into history lesson, but it wasn't so cute back then. First, the west basically sold us out to Hitler with their appeasement politics, then they made a deal with USSR and waited so that they could liberate the eastern part of the continent while the western Allieas could have already moved east, so that USSR could then and drag us all into communism whether we liked it or not. Also, you guys have nukes. Nobody is going to actually attack you. If the US ends up in war, it will likely be against itself. The comparison to the trauma of WW2 in Europe does not work.

Seriously, so many topics now look like you need to pick one of the two options on opposite extremes. "We really should not demonize men and make statements how cis white men are the worst and don't deserve the same consideration as other people and that misandry either doesn't exist or is based." and "Women don't owe men sex and/or relationships and men need to sort their issues like men's loneliness or severe misogyny among themselves." can coexist together.

Because trans women were born male?

Yeah, JK Rowling is not a good example of a cancellation. For one, she still has books being published and millions of people who buy them, she has her Xitter account where she can post whatever she wants. Maybe she is not invited to many interviews these days, but that is IMO more because people don't want her to start spewing controversial opinions. The same would probably be true if she had the opposite opinion and could not refrain from talking only about that. Is not like media is super pro-trans, some of them just don't want to be caught in some controversy. I remember on Graham Norton, Miriam Margolyes said that guests are now often told not to speak about the trans topic, but of course her being who she is (I mean that in a good way), she said, fuck it, I'm gonna talk about it. I think that was quite interesting, learning that yes, people are told not to speak too much about some topics (especially if it isn't relevant to what they are promoting, I presume). Speaking of Graham Norton, he made a completely innocent comment last year that wasn't even aimed at Rowling and her squad attacked him so much that he left Twitter. Same with her recent attacks on David Tennant, who also didn't say anything negative about her. She can miss me with calling herself cancelled when she reacts like an angry child who can't stand people having different opinion about her new special interest and weaponizes her followers in such toxic ways. She can have her opinions all she wants, I already said that people can have any opinions about gender and we shouldn't demonize them for it, but the same has to go both ways and she refuses to accept that. I know that people who don't follow it closely think that she is just another celebrity who was called out for not being up-to-date with what is offensive, but she really is very wile in how she goes about expressing her opinions and she completely ignored it when people tried to talk to her in a polite way and explain how she is harmful. People can express their opinions, but those with large numbers of followers should IMO be a bit more careful about what they say, especially on topics where they are basically just talking about their own emotions instead of real facts and attack those who actually studied the topic - the same goes for antiwax, history, etc. If the definition has the word female, it is not trans-inclusive, so I don't think this is a good definition. I hate that "what is a woman" thing that people use as some "gotcha" argument. Nobody asks what a man is. Also, shouldn't it be "who is a woman", at least? What seems a bit dehumanizing, but I'm not a native speaker and maybe I'm overthinking it. Still, the best answer so far seems to be "a person".

Well, look who isn't popular:

It was ok, I liked how it combined both the famous figures and some regular fictional characters that showed us more about the everyday life. But it was sometimes pretty over-the-top and it was funny how the same two characters always managed to get involved in the major stuff 😆. So much that, if I remember correctly,

I remember TV shows set in post-WW1 era where men had such views. Yet another thing from the 1920's that is re-emerging in 2020's.

Regarding cancel culture, I think that people tend to dismiss it because the ones who usually complain about it are the ones who are far from cancelled. How is one cancelled if they complain on every platform? That's why so many of us joke that when somebody says they were cancelled for their transphobic (or as they call it now gender critical) views, it probably means that they have a new Netflix special or a book deal coming up. If someone is genuinely "cancelled", we probably won't hear much about it, certainly not their side because most media will keep their distance, apart from maybe some small independent publisher who doesn't think they have much to loose.

I wouldn't say so. We have just had a few exchanges between people with different opinions and those opinions were more or less respected and heard and surprise, the world didn't stop spinning because of it. In an echo chamber, some of us would have already been sent packing.