It sounds like you’re selling an ideology then, not a functional product.
It sounds like you’re selling an ideology then, not a functional product.
Alright. Let’s think of a random Joe, that uses reddit. A cousin, a friend, etc. What would be the pitch for them to give this coop social network a try?
For example:
Hey Joe, I know you like Reddit, check this out…
Proof of burden falls on whoever is making the assertion.
What problem would this be solving? How would it improve on what’s already on offer? Are there any benefits to being a member or a worker, compared to a regular subscription model and a job?
These are not rethoric, I like the idea but I’m curious how it would work on more practical terms.
That’s because it is either a bot or CharGPT generated.
It means they are a bottom.
Wait, people used these unironically?
I personally think we should fediversify existence itself…
Maybe put down the blunt and broaden your horizons. Nothing in your life deserves this level of fanaticism.
Just hop on a public server and try to make some friends. If you join right after a wipe there will be lots of nakeds on the beach looking for fun.
This wasn’t a bug, it’s a feature of capitalism.
That’s the fun part. You don’t.
You draft them and order them to invade another country.
Lol. Cope.
How is simping them any different from calling them “basically Hitler from the past”? If you’re talking with your feelings, what you are saying is by definition not-objective, like with simps, but also with haters. I doubt you or OP are any more informed on history than the average Lemmy rando. By starting with the desired conclusion, rather than with arguments, the discussion is already beginning on subjective terms.
They are conflicting in some things but agree on many things…
If this is your definition of “objective”, something you can say about the books in the Bible, sure bro I guess. To me objective means it can be empirically proven: 2+2=4. Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Water at sea level boils at 100c. Etc.
If you think the one of many competing, historical narratives that you or your culture chose are “objective truth”, sure bro, that’s how politics works.
What do you mean “objectively studying history”, what is objective about History? What you’re studying is a narrative, that has been put together by experts, based of what remains from that past. There is nothing “objective” about History, it is an educated guess. Even written records are narratives told from the perspective and culture of the ancient writer.
This is to say that, the reason we don’t judge historical figures through a modern lens is that to do so is to ignore history. It doesn’t matter what your think about Alexander the Great, it matters what his contemporaries (both friends and enemies) had to say about him (objectively biased narratices). For another example think about what the Greeks wrote about the Persians during their many wars, and vice versa. They are conflicrive accounts. Both biased and political. So again, what history is correct, objective?
You lower your head and do your work. You’re all adults and what they do is their biz.
Just be honest and let him know you don’t want to talk about yourself/certain topics.