|
Top-level
 @drq "...belches smoke and poisons water and enslaves humanity." A better example for his needs would be the way people blame this on particular CEOs or investors, rather than the structures and baked-in incentives that drive corporations towards doing such things. 4 comments
 @strypey Still, the main point stands: the Dunbar number is a thing, empathy has limits, and if you find yourself not caring about everyone everywhere all at once, it's okay: you're not really designed to. No one is, so also don't expect everybody to do so. If you can - good, but don't act all high and mighty if someone doesn't. It's a valuable lesson, in my opinion. @drq In some cases. But both conservatives and liberals have a tendency to think that inherently destructive entities would magically become benign with a change of leadership. You can see this in reverse with Melon Husk and Titter. The entity is not fundamentally any better or worse than it was before (worse for some users, better for other), but that's not how the Husk fanboys or the diaspora who are leaving see it. |
Gregory's Server
@strypey
> way people blame this on particular CEOs or investors
Also important to note on that: when people say, for example "Mark Zuckerberg/Steve Jobs/Elon Musk/Vladimir Putin/George Bush/(name any powerful person) is a psychopath" - what they often mean is using the name of the person in a collective sense, as a stand-in for the systems they represent. AND IT'S OKAY! They don't personally know the guy. But they see the harm that those systems (maybe even inadvertently) cause, so there you go.