Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)G

Gorilladrums

@ Gorilladrums @lemmy.world

Posts
4
Comments
52
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • My parents like Pete Hegseth. How is this possible?

    Jump

  • I'm 100% you're a troll who's being pedantic. But here's an example anyway:

    Your parents might lack empathy and are cruel, therefore they are looking for other cruel people to confirm their cruel behavior: The cruelty is the point

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/

    That's one of the top comments. All we have is the second hand account of OP who vaguely stated that his parents like Hegseth. We have no idea who they are, what they stand for, why they like Hegseth, or to what extent. Yet people like this commenter took the liberty to just make unhinged baseless assumptions about how they're cruel and evil. That's unhinged. If you can't see it, you're probably unhinged yourself.

  • My parents like Pete Hegseth. How is this possible?

    Jump

  • Literally all of the top comments. The real question is how can you not see how unhinged they are?

  • My parents like Pete Hegseth. How is this possible?

    Jump

  • Nobody here knows anything about OP's parents or why they like Hegseth or to what extent, and then have hoards of idiots calling them cruel, evil, or vile with zero context. Like I said, unhinged. You just don't see it because you're a part of the mob

  • My parents like Pete Hegseth. How is this possible?

    Jump

  • This comment section is comically unhinged and batshit crazy that it's a good reminder that this platform is infested by terminally online idiots who I should interact less with. Welp time to go touch some grass.

  • Removed

    Which Lemmy instance is better to move to?

    Jump

  • Case in point lmao

  • Removed

    Which Lemmy instance is better to move to?

    Jump

  • I'm gonna keep it real with you. You're going to see the same problems no matter which instance you end up on.

    I have no idea who you are, and I don't care. However, purely looking at your account history and modlog, you seem like a generally unpleasant person. You come off as someone who picks fights and can't take criticism. The way you act is rude, hostile, and annoying. You also seem to be into some weird conspiracies, which makes you look unhinged. That's probably why you keep getting banned. You're not being banned for being a woman or a feminist, but because you break a lot of rules, at least according to the modlog.

    My point is that it doesn't matter which instance or platform you go to. You're the common denominator. Obviously, that doesn't mean people should harass you, but it does mean you're at least partly responsible for how people interact with you. Lemmy is usually a chill place if you avoid politics, and even then, most people are nice as long as you're civil. From what I see people are just treating you the way you treat them, so there's a good chance that your problems might follow you on a new instance.

  • Removed

    Which Lemmy instance is better to move to?

    Jump

  • Damn, she got exposed lmao. You're doing the lord's work be sharing this with the community, thank you.

  • Ask Lemmy @lemmy.world
    Gorilladrums @lemmy.world

    What's your solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict?

  • Ask Lemmy @lemmy.world
    Gorilladrums @lemmy.world

    What's a popular opinion on Lemmy that's unpopular in the real world?

  • Seriously, how would a global democracy work?

    Jump

  • You're literally brain dead lmao

  • Seriously, how would a global democracy work?

    Jump

  • I mean that's a completely fair point of view. If we make the assumption that humanity will continue to progress with time, even if there are periods of regression, then I could see where you're coming from. Humanity did evolve from being nomadic tribes to creating settlements of tribes to creating nations from settlements to creating empires from nations to today where we're forming unions of empires and nations. It's logical to think that with time we'll have these unions merge and create a higher authority, and if we follow this trajectory it should eventually lead to a global government. I just hope we don't go extinct before that happens.

  • Seriously, how would a global democracy work?

    Jump

  • A global government at it's core is a form of imperialism. The idea is going to pushed by specific regions who stand to gain the most and it'll opposed by region who stand to gain the least. No matter what shape the global government takes on, it will always be dominated by a select number of regions. Where the seats of government are going to be, who enforces its laws, who makes up the government, what ideals it would embody, how the voting system is set up, what degree of autonomy can be granted and who grants it, and so on these are things that have to be forced upon people by an authority that seeks to monopolize violence. Imperialism as a concept of where a nation spreads expanding it's influence and power isn't inherently bad, but based on human history this is an idea that can get bad pretty quick. I don't think a global government can be implemented without a great deal of push back, resistance, and force to squash it all.

  • Seriously, how would a global democracy work?

    Jump

  • This is the dumbest thing I've read all day lmao.

    Idk how historically illiterate you are, but direct democracy HAS been used plenty of times throughout history. Native American tribes like Muscogee, Swiss Cantons, and even early colonial New England towns all used direct democracy. There are plenty of examples of it being used, however, it's only ever been implemented successfully on small scales. Technology isn't a limiting factor and never was, it's only a limiting factor when it's implemented on really large scales due to the logistics, however, the issues of logistics go BEYOND just technological limitations. You would think that this is just common knowledge, but apparently not.

    But if you're genuinely incapable of comprehending any of the points that I made then you're not qualified for this conversation.

  • Seriously, how would a global democracy work?

    Jump

  • It's not a matter of technology, the concept is just inherently flawed. Even if every person could vote instantaneously and have their votes counted immediately, it still wouldn't work because direct democracy requires everybody to vote on every issue. There's just way too many things going on in the world for this to be feasible. Direct democracy is only works on small scales, and it's just not a good form of government beyond that. This is why you rarely see direct democracy in history, the evolution of history has favored representative democracy as the superior form of democratic governance because it's more practical, efficient, and flexible.

  • Seriously, how would a global democracy work?

    Jump

  • That's not what I meant, I meant that the concept of sovereignty has persisted over time. Different groups of people have sought out their independence and they go to great lengths to protect it. I obviously didn't mean that sovereignty was protected throughout history because that's clearly not true. The world is filled with empires and invasions. However, I think most people today agree that this was bad. I think a lot of people today would see a modern global government in a similar negative light as it would greatly favor regions in the world that are already rich, heavily populated, and strong. In other words, countries like the US and China would still end up dominating and poor regions would still be screwed over.

  • Seriously, how would a global democracy work?

    Jump

  • The EU consists of a bunch of European countries that are similar culturally, economically, and politically. It makes sense for them to form a union that aims to achieve their common interests. A lot of similar unions exist like ASEAN, Arab League, African Union, etc. These are still different than having a single government for the entire world. There are way too many differences for that to work, different cultures, unequal economies, different religions, different politics, etc. This global government would end up trying to appease everyone to maintain the unity, but this would ultimately lead to have no teeth. In other words it'll be reduced to what the UN is now.

  • Seriously, how would a global democracy work?

    Jump

  • Take a moment and think about what the global conditions were like 300 years ago, and think about how things improved every 50 years since then.

    Around 1725, most of the world was rural, poor, and ruled by monarchies, with low life expectancy and little technology. By 1775, Enlightenment ideas and early industrialization began shifting societies. In 1825, machines and railroads transformed economies. By 1875, electricity and vaccines improved life. In 1925, cars, radios, and modern medicine spread. By 1975, civil rights, global trade, and computers reshaped the world. And today? Well, you can probably tell how our modern lives are better today than they were in the 1970s.

    To put things in perspective, in the 1800s, only around the 10% of the world was literate, but today only around 10% are illiterate. Similarly, in the 1800s, more than 90% people were living in extreme poverty, but today that's around 10%. The same goes for many other stats. What does this tell us? It tells us that things do get better with time. Even though we went through plagues, wars, famines, droughts, and genocides we did come out the other side better than we did before.

    So maybe, just maybe, we don't need a global government. Maybe vastly different people separated by culture, land, and history shouldn't be forced into a system with people they don't understand very well. Maybe it's better for us to respect the concept of sovereignty that has persisted throughout history, and focus on strengthening the trends that have brought us tremendous progress over time.... like improving the access and quality of education globally, developing and sharing new advancements in medicine, innovating new technologies to make our lives easier, pushing for and protecting civil rights and individual liberties, and generating wealth and prosperity through market economies.

    The point is that maybe it's better that we focus on improving what we know works from historical trends instead trying to create a global government, which will certainly create a whole new set of issues. Perhaps what we need is more dialogue and cooperation through forums like the UN instead of consolidation through a world government.

  • Seriously, how would a global democracy work?

    Jump

  • Direct democracy sounds good on the surface, but it's an impractical system when you actually into it. For example, direct democracy can overwhelm voters with complex issues they may not fully understand, leading to uninformed or emotionally driven decisions. Participation tends to be inconsistent, with only a small, active minority shaping outcomes. The process itself is often slow and expensive, requiring frequent referendums that delay urgent action. There's the risk of majority tyranny, where the will of the majority can override minority rights, and it’s vulnerable to manipulation by well funded interest groups. Complex policies are also often reduced to oversimplified yes/no choices, bypassing the expertise and deliberation that's required.

    We don't have direct democracy because it's only practical in small scales. Once you get outside of your immediate communities like neighborhoods, schools, families, the system just doesn't work. There's a reason why the evolution of political system led us to where we are. History has shown that the best form of governments are liberal representative democracies with strong checks and balances. We should strive for that.

  • xD.

    Jump

  • There aren't any applicable words in the English language to properly describe the sheer hatred I have for Teams.

  • Is the number of Lemmy users increasing?

    Jump

  • While I agree with you that Lemmy is vulnerable to spam, I don't think it'll a problem any time soon. Even if the userbase grows ten fold, that would still only be around 350k users. That's not enough to attract any major attention. Any spam Lemmy would get would come internally from users feuding with the devs or each other.

  • Is the number of Lemmy users increasing?

    Jump

  • If I were to redesign Lemmy, I would design it be like Reddit, but without the corporate centralization, so basically each subreddit would be it's own instance, and they can federate or defedarate with other subreddits. I wouldn't design it to where each instance tries to be it's own full fledged Reddit alternative like right now. That's a much cleaner design, but the big issue with it is that hosting the instances is a pain and so most people can't do it.

    Therefore, my much more realistic alternative, is to add tags. Each community would have a limited number of relevant tags (could be required to create a community), and users can view and follow these tags. These tags would help streamline all these different communities across Lemmy under one label, which is the result we're trying to achieve. I would also add another tab on the home feed called "tags" where users can view and filter all the posts from the all tags they follow.

  • Ask Lemmy @lemmy.world
    Gorilladrums @lemmy.world

    What's your creative solution to solve the loneliness epidemic?

  • Ask Lemmy @lemmy.world
    Gorilladrums @lemmy.world

    What do you think is the biggest issue with Lemmy?