SirDerpy @ SirDerpy @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

590

Joined

1 yr. ago

Inclusion implies that if she'd not been targeted then she'd not have spoken up.

This poster assumed bad faith maliciousness instead of asking questions. They can't tell friend from foe. But, they've certainly lots of words to express the status quo reasoning prevalent among you.

I choose to vote to influence the 2028 POTUS election. But, you're not asking. Assume what you wish.

Assuming disagreement and bad faith is even worse than assuming me and idiot, particularly when you're not asking any questions.

No, seriously, I've got a bunch of yard work to do.

I once had a series of those suburban yards. Now, my rural yard is mostly some grasses, wild strawberry, and dandelion. There's ants, spiders, slugs, praying mantis, ladybugs and others that mimic them, and worms. I let one corner do its thing and now it's full of bees. I no longer use water, fertilizer or weedkiller. I just mow it. It's always green, though what's growing well changes with the season and conditions. Nature takes care of itself, despite me running my mower over it.

I thought about not mowing it. But, I'm worried about rodents, snakes, and black bear getting too close. I should probably plant some native trees and shrubs to eat some space.

Now that the main glut of whatever has passed, I want to express that your post above, particularly your question, made my day. It's perhaps the best question I've been asked engaging with .world. Thank you.

Is perpetuating false dichotomy?

You're assuming I'm dumb. That's an error.

I'm also a triple minority. I'm not afraid of Trump. I've suffered his kind my whole life.

Perhaps the way to progress is to put the platform you want on every Presidential ballot in 2028. You know how that's done, right?

"Don't vote for the shit candidate" otoh is reasonable

I agree. That's why I won't vote for Trump, Harris, or anyone else that funds their campaigns with corporate money.

She stated in her post a major motivation for her was the fake AI pictures Trump and Co circulated a few weekss ago

That's definitely a part she should've left out.

She's at least as qualified as one of the candidates to have a perspective

Your measure of merit is "relative to shit".

I strongly question the judgement of anyone who questions the judgement of someone advising voting against Trump.

You don't care for facts and reason, only agreement.

That's not a perspective that deserves respect.

Is there any reason her perspective should not have any value but yours and mine should?

She provides nearly no reasoning for her perspective.

Furthermore, if someone does know who she is and wants to also take into account that they admire her music and songwriting, her personality, her perspective, and/or her various life accomplishments, why shouldn’t they?

She's rich, a marketed character. She shouldn't be trusted by default.

We’re talking about politics here, where everyone is making it up as they go along. She’s not trying to use her celebrity status to get a paper published in a physics journal or something.

This ridiculous comparison, and being outright incorrect in it, is why your questions weren't answered. I've rectified that.

And yet your thesis is that there’s no reason to place any value on what she says?

No reason? I didn't say that. I said the implied reasons to value her perspective aren't meritable.

Now that I've read her post I find I was entirely correct. She's chosen what's safe, politic, and popular: conclusions without reasoning. She could've risked what her conscience should've told her was correct. But, she predictably didn't.

My standards are high relative status quo and average relative very basic moral and ethical analysis. I'll encourage you to choose to also set a higher standard. As a human you deserve better.

What is wrong with this?

Her reasoning isn't communicated in adequate nuance to earn respect for her perspective. She's chosen what's safe, politic, and popular rather than risk what her conscience should tell her is right.

Thank you.

She states her conclusions with nearly non-existent reasoning. As it sits it deserves very little respect.

Is that moral and ethical?

You write like a freshman

I must meet my audience where the are.

How do you propose we go about changing this? How do we effectively encourage it?

You're witnessing one very small act of praxis right now. But, my best results are always IRL, personal, in a recurring one-on-one or small group discussion. And, I'm not to lead that discussion, instead following where the others lead, the only boundary logical fallacy.

A poor summary would be "Agency at all costs." But, a good answer to your question would require a very lengthy response. My greatest influence in means is Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire (1968). But, there's so many good tools, from the New Testament to the emotional delivery of Malcolm X. Being able to adapt is critical. Perhaps most important is to risk making it personal.

There's so much bullshit here that I acted as if you also posted bullshit. I apologize. I've read your post in full and more carefully.

I can't seem to find her post in full, only snippets of her conclusion. Mass media sucks that way. Do you happen to know where I can find her post, unedited and without making an account?