Headlines starting with like “Trump explodes” give a hope that is immediately dashed upon finishing the sentence

This is refreshing. I’m so tired of right wing people being like “the government can’t do anything right and I’m going to prove it by sabotaging and starving the government”.

You can read it for free but you have to sign up (for free). Not sure if there’s another word for that. Free-walled? Login-walled?

I recently read “People’s History of the United States” and it paints a much grimmer picture of the early US. It didn’t take long for the alien and sedition acts to be written, despite the grand language about freedom. There’s also many, many, years of labor asking for more than dirt and being violently suppressed.

Friend. The argument isn’t “you should judge something by its reputation”. The argument is people do that. It is a heuristic or whatever you call that kind of shortcuts.

It is impossible to assess the validity of every source and detail. We rely on trust and reputation and other signals. It’s faster, cheaper, and good enough for most things. When your friend you and trust says “I’ve got some free candy in the van” you probably respond differently than when a blood soaked stranger does.

I’m not saying we should rely on this entirely. I’m simply saying that’s a fact of life. People save effort by not critically evaluating everything from first principles when they can just go “my friend recommended it, this Taco place is probably good”. It could be a horrible taco place! But it’s faster to go by something like in-group recommendations than a full research project.

I feel like I’m repeating myself into the void. Surely you don’t all launch extensive research projects for every piece of information and decision that you come across.

This whole damned thread started from someone saying

Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it’s true or false.

And that’s just not how humans act all of the time! Sometimes, often, they don’t think through everything. They don’t research. They look at the source and go “nah”.

You can argue that’s bad, and sure it often is. But that doesn’t change the fact that that’s how people behave.

The courier with 10 int, charisma, luck could probably do a pretty good job.

I’ve only been to Montreal, but no one there was unkind about it. I’m really bad at French and the worst response I got was a, like, “it sounds weird when you stop and start so much, but you’ll get there”. Granted, i mostly stuck to English.

Right? If they had just kept windows as “fine” I probably would not have made the switch to Linux. Inertia is powerful. Now I’m full Linux time and have no regrets. Pop!_os with the kde desktop is fine

You keep ignoring my point to extrude a lot of words.

People assess what people say in part based on the reputation of the speaker. That’s it.

And I’m saying people do exactly that. They read a tabloid that says anything and they go “yeah I don’t trust the enquirer” and either dismiss it, or find another source to confirm.

Surely you don’t trust the factual claims of a tabloid as much as a reputable paper, or an unkempt man screaming on the street corner as much as your history professor.

Neat. Feel like one of them I had to guess on, but otherwise is nice.

Many people struggle with admitting they’re wrong, or their world view is flawed.

Seems like most people don’t really care about or understand stuff like “private platforms enshittify”. Certainly not enough to be inconvenienced. People will be like “that’s where the good memes are” or “that’s where my video games post”. Heavens forbid you miss the hot memes.

Renting would almost make sense if it was dirt fucking cheap. The reality is it often costs an amount comparable to a mortgage, but without any of the benefits.

Personally I think housing should be a right and everyone entitled to it, and should not be used as an investment or vector for wealth.

I don’t know what everyone else is thinking, but to my mind people consider the source. You’re more likely to believe a reputable newspaper than a tabloid, I hope.

Pretty much anything except the depths of winter, and maybe the heights of summer.

Lol. No. The parent quote was

Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it’s true or false

My response rejects “criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from” (using a colloquial sense of criticism, like if a place is good or bad). People definitely evaluate based in part on the source.

The song game. I feel like a lot of people have come up with it naturally.

One person plays a song. The next person has to then play a song with some sort of connection to it. Like, you could follow the velvet underground’s “Sunday Morning” with Nirvana’s “Lithium” because it has the line “Sunday morning is every day for all I care”. Any connection is valid so long as the group accepts it, but I prefer lyrical ones myself.

That’s it. You go around until you lose interest.

I like it as a way to share music, because to do well you typically have to actually listen with their song.

Someone from my high school died in a car crash. I wasn’t close to them. People were sad about it, but aside from their name being read at graduation there wasn’t much done about it.

I will continue to avoid McDonald’s. Not going to break a no-meat streak for a shitty burger.