skytrim

It sounds good in principle but would be hard to do in practice because everyone would have to do a lot of work negotiating 'standards' (technical stuff and editorial principles like how to handle NSFW content etc) that would apply universally across the federation of forums and as this is all voluntary work it is asking a lot of people.

I was a 'early adopter' for technology most of my life. I tried Facebook when it was new. As soon as I signed up for an account, I saw how it was abusive - taking away my choices, treating me like a farmed animal being milked for data. I signed up. And immediately started the process to cancel my account. They tried every trick to stop me closing my account. I do not know if it ever was closed! I did the same with everything else that was new and closed all of it very quickly as it was almost always abusive or time-wasting in some way.

The only stuff I stick with is stuff I consider ethical - which is why I am using Mastodon and Lemmy not commercialised social media. And I tend to use that episodically and then get frustrated and stop using it for months before another flurry of use. Why do I use social media? I guess I use it when I am scared and need reassurance from others. Why do I stop? When I do not get the community care I need. We talk about 'loneliness epidemic' in contemporary society. I am not sure its 'loneliness' - I live alone and like it. What I feel is fear. Maybe we are ashamed to admit it. I am not ashamed to say it - the prospect of fascism, WW3, loss of a 'safety net' does frighten me. It is rational to be afraid! When afraid, you look for others who also feel threatened and you test to see 'do they have my back?' If there's a sense of safety, mutual support, you stay. If there is not, you move on.

Social media 'works' if it solves real life problems, if it does not help you stop using it. Sure, kids with no real worries because they are protected by adults can post rubbish online for 'shits and giggles' but anyone aged 14 or older quickly loses that privilege as they move into adult life and then they use social media differently - for fun, yes, but also it must help you survive by giving you ideas, comfort, information, encouragement, escape for a bit etc. If it only adds abuse to a hard life, who has the energy for it?

I just closed my The Guardian UK version account. I used to comment on the news stories. I can no longer be arsed because of the stress it causes - 99% of comments are so damn stupid and adrift from reality. Most of the comments are from people who (1) voted Labour in order to get change despite being warned by Labour itself, as well as everyone on the Left, that it was not offering change and (2) are now belly-aching because Labour is too Rightwing for them and no better than Tories. Starmer says he 'likes and respects Trump' - what the fuck!?! Leopards are eating Labour voters' faces and they are lacting shocked? If you say so, your comment gets deleted by the moderators because we are not allowed to be truthful or challenge MSM's imaginary version of the world which is carefully curated to be cosy and profitable. Fuck 'em all.

I only want to hear from people willing to face reality. I need to find a community that is living in the real world not in some self-indulgent fantasy in their head like most British voters seem to be. I reckon that the age of social media is dead because the age of comfort is over. It was fine wasting time on posting nonsense when you were not watching a coup or seeing WW3 developing in real time or could still believe that whatever happened online, offline life was ticking over normally and you could still feed yourself, access housing, get healthcare, rely on benefits if you were sick or old. All of that safety in real life is gone - so to survive this shock we bunker-down and that means finding your village to shelter with because who wants to bunk with Nazis or cultists?

There will still be social media going forward but it will be fragmented because in times of war, you take a side and you do not fraternise with the enemy. Anyone lamenting this is pretending we still live in the past when you could get along with others and 'two side' debates because actually you agreed on 90% of stuff and were disputing details. Now we dispute the nature of reality and fundamental morality and there is no two sides to such existential matters. I mean it has been brewing for almost a decade (i.e. in the west, started much longer ago in places like Russia and 'untruth no reality stop-think' probably infected the west from those places) - ever since the rise of 4chan and bizarre conspiracy theorists started undermining reason, was turbo-charged by the pandemic, and started to infect reality via stuff like brexit and MAGA. There is no excuse to be surprised that we are here, it was clearly signposted for years.

I know it is the Far-Right who brought us to this crisis but as a radical Leftist I say 'bring it on!' You started this conflict, I am determined people like me will win it. I just need to find my comrades and unite in push-back. I get my inspiration from democracy protests like those currently happening in Serbia, Greece, Turkiye. Why is there nothing like that scale of reaction in USA or UK? Because most people in those places are still feeling comfortable and do not grasp the reality of the crisis they are in. They will not react until it is too late. They frustrate me past expression!

I needed to vent.

I agree with you but I got side-tracked because of the way my childish mind thinks and started chuckling to myself as I imagined an enormous 'dictator's support'. The Trump Truss (patent pending). I am visualising something Steampunk style with polished brass, gears and levers, and puffs of steam - a bit like the walking house in Howl's Moving Castle but bolted around the Tangerine nethers. Cheered me up!

Whoa! You paint a vivid picture, I feel I'm there!

Reminds me of my grandparent's County Durham 'pit village'. I think the difference in the UK is that we would have signalled interest by twitching net curtains (no one but the priest, bookie, or police seargent had access to a fancy stuff like a telephone) as the stranger passed and afterwards gathering in scandalised huddles, we would be talking in loud whispers about 'whae's yhe when ee's yem?' (or in posher English, 'Prithee good neighbour, verily, knowest thou ought of whom this stranger shalt be, whither he cometh, and whence he goeth?')

Oh, boy! We've come a long way - thank goodness!

Beware the Ides of March, huh?

If I recall, Shakespeare's Caesar says to Antony:

*Let me have men about me that are fat,

Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.

Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,

He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.*

Trump certainly has plenty of fat men around him. I just thought it was a coincidence rather than a strategy but maybe he has some well-read people in his security team? Nah, on reflection, I think it's just a coincidence.

I think we have to explore moral questions. I think it immoral to just refuse to think. It is wrong to simply assert 'killing people is wrong' instead of arguing a case. Games, imaginary scenarios, give us laboratories in which to test out our ideas without hurting anyone.

Like you, I am very reluctant to harm any sentient being. But is it always wrong? Example of a thought experiment: you are passenger on an airplane, a terrorist hijacks the plane, says he is going to fly it into a hospital and kill thousands of people. You just came out of the rest room and are behind him, he has not realised you are there, you could jump him but he has a gun, you might have to wrestle for the gun, and he, or you, or a bystander might get killed. What do you do? If you must never kill, then you must not take the risk of killing him, or yourself, or a bystander while you wrestle so you just have to let him fly the plane into the hospital and kill thousands. Or you might argue it is morally better to act, risk killing someone rather than do nothing, and as a result thousands die.

For thousands of years (probably far longer) humans have asked themselves 'what if...?' questions. We did this with stories around the camp fire, with theatre, with novels, with radio, movies, t.v., cartoons, comic books. Now we do it with video games. Speculating and questioning and debating is how we develop moral views. This is how humans do human. This is the way we got to having courts of law to argue cases, democratic institutions to argue over what is best government. Asking a question is not immoral. Refusing to ask questions is - those who do not think for themselves, often have their thinking done for them by others, and that is at best infantalising, a refusal to do adult, and at worst a form of willing slavery. That's my view.

Hello!

You made me chuckle - 1/3rd of my kids still talks to me. I shouldn't laugh but 'name one thing that defines C21st living...' Ha!

I am a big sci-fi fan too but have no telly (by choice, I just can't watch one without irritation - I listen to podcasts because at least you can do other stuff while listening so it feels less like being hijacked by a pub bore). But every birthday, Christmas or whatever, all the parcels are dvd-shaped because no one believes I can live without seeing the latest cult tv series so they force-feed me their greatest hits of the previous year - I gave watched some weird stuff over the years. I haven't heard of DARK but it'll no doubt turn up in my stocking sooner or later ;-)

I have not read Julian May but I have certainly seen her movies which are cult classics. I tend to read the sci-fi classics - stuff which is now called 'literature' like HG Wells War of the Worlds, Time Machine. Ursula le Guinn Left Hand of God. William Golding The Inheritors. My sister was very into the fantasy side of sci-fi and comic sci-fi - Terry Pratchett's Discworld and such. I've read a couple of his books which she recommended and I like his word play and dry humour. 'Give a man a match and he will be warm until he burns his fingers, set a man on fire with a match, and he is warm for the rest of his life' (quoted from memory) - one of Terry's aphorisms that made me laugh.

I am intrigued by your interest in Titannic - you are going to have to explain that. Is it the disaster that intrigues you, the engineering, the economics of trans-Atlantic passenger transport, salvaging the wreck? When I was a teen, I was mad keen on going to sea and enquired about becoming a cadet in the merchant navy (never fancied the RN, did not want to kill) but was torn between the executive officer career path or engineering. Titannic disaster is something I ponder as bad engineering or bad seamanship or corporate wickedness. In the end, went to university as I got a scholarship and was more or less pushed that way by the adults around me. It was one of those crossroads in life where you make a decision (at 18, knowing nothing of life) and afterwards you wonder were you a fool.

It's not fair just having one life - we need much more time than we get and we build up all this experience only for it to die with us. I would design a different universe if I were god.

I could see a role for 'elder statesmen and women' as a chamber of cousellors i.e. they offer advice when asked but are not 'hands-on'. Instead, they step down at a retirement age (about 60 years old say) and their juniors step up. That way you get the best from all generations and no generation selfishly dominates decision-making.

You make fair comment. I don't disagree with 99% of what you say. However, I stand by my words about addiction. I agree gaming is potentially a very benign thing and I get a lot of pleasure from gaming but I still want to red flag some aspects of it where addiction does seem to be a factor. Being addicted to gaming has led to health problems for players e.g. repetitive strain injuries or tendonitis - it has adversely affected my health, made my arthritis worse, caused tendonitis so I have had to cut back etc. In extreme cases, addicted gamers have murdered their own babies or been violent to partners because they were distracted by them while playing, lost their temper, and lashed out. And getting players addicted is obviously potentially profitable but making profit from addiction is evil. I say 'responsible gaming' needs to be the uncompromising rule just like with anything else that can be addictive or mood-altering or get under our skins the way a well-made game can.

Isn't that a old Chinese curse? 'May you live in interesting times...' Hold on to your hat!

Yeah, I reckon 60 is the new 40. And I don't even feel 40. I still feel like I felt when I was 16 and at punk rock concerts so in my head I am a baby still but if people call me old, I'll play along just for the giggles. I fancy being a grumpy old timer like grandpa in the Simpsons - 'I wore a 40lb beard of bees' style. Ha!

Appalachians - am I right to be thinking about that movie with the banjo music right now? Deliverance, or some such title?

Ooh boy! My family were coal miners and railway workers, life was pretty tough in remote rural mining villages. I think I can guess what sorta childhood you had. Been there, done that, we got the same t-shirt?