• 1 Post
  • 249 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle



  • Because AI and previously google searches are not a substitute for having knowledge and experience. You can learn by googling something and reading about how something works so you can figure out answers for yourself. But googling for answers will not teach you much. Even if it solves a problem, you won’t learn how. And won’t be able to fix something in the future without googling th answer again.

    If you dont learn how to do something, you won’t be experienced enough to know when you are doing it wrong.

    I use google to give me answers all the time when im problem solving. But i have to spend a lot more time after the fact to learn why what i did fixed the problem.













  • What’s the endgame here for users?

    Do we just want a reasonable subscription price? Something we can genuinely afford?

    If youtube doesn’t play ads then they cant remain a service. At least not as it is today. Hosting costs money.

    Im not shilling for them, i dont want ads either. And google are a terrible company. But im trying to be realistic.

    Do we want cheap subscription?

    Or a reduced service that can be maintained without so many ads

    Do we just want 5 second skippable ads back?

    Im just seeing this fight progressing to the point were youtube becomes subscription only and the ad blocker users have to pay or lose the service they obviously want to access.


  • I just dont think that morality and politics are the same thing. I can judge a joke for its morality without it being skewed by political bias.

    I think that when a former president makes jokes about nancy pelosi’s husband being attacked with a hammer, and people are laughing it up and joining in, that when someone attacks donald trump, and someone makes a joke about it, those same people should be either joining in on the joke or apologising for making their jokes in the first place.

    They can’t have it both ways.

    This is not a political stance because i could argue that from any side of the street. It is a moral argument that happens to be about politicians.

    Replace the two subjects with anyone else, and the argument would be the same.

    The thing is that i despise donald trump so much that his jokes just added to how much i dislike him. But its exactly what i expected of him and didnt lead me to despise him. No his actions as a president and as a human over the course of his career and life have lead me to that.

    Kyle gas has only ever inspired me to like him. He has been a nice guy and very funny his whole career. So im inclined to think that he didnt actually wish death on the former president. Whereas if tump made the same joke i would be very inclined to think that he meant it, because he has given me very little proof to the contrary.

    My view on morality is what’s skewing my opinion here, not my political bias.


  • My belief that kyle doesn’t wish trump harm is 100% my opinion. It may be a belief i have formed through a “distorted lense”, yes, that is very possible. But to call it a conclusion is not exactly correct. I will change my belief and draw a conclusion when the evidence is presented.

    My conclusion about dave is one drawn from statements made by dave. Not his jokes, not his standup. Dave has continually reaffirmed this stance, he denies the existence of trans people and repeatedly states that there are 2 genders. A line he said comes to mind “gender is a fact” its not one incident, its many. I would say to draw a conclusion based of one incident would be “distorted” but to base it on years of anti trans rhetoric is quite a clear and clean cut conclusion to draw…


  • Why does it need to go to the extreme? Are you telling me you have this all figured out theres no room for improvement in your view on morality? Im navigating this as it comes. Anything i say or have said is and should always be subject to change. And im also not willing to be the one who sets the bar here. Im not the one who decides whats ok and whats not. That is a collective thing that must be decided by society. You are too adamant in your beliefs for me to take you seriously. Its not on the individual to decide. Its up to everyone.

    I would say, yes there must be a point where i would condemn a comedian based on jokes they are telling. But im still working that out.

    I think intent matters. I think it is a strong factor in deciding if a joke is ok or not. To me the joke was more about kyles political leanings. I dont think he was advocating for murder. I think he was using that attempted assasination as a vehicle to state he doesn’t want trump to be president. Sure, there are better ways of saying that but if you truely belive there is no room for nuance here then i belive it is a failing on your part to understand the joke as opposed to a failure on my part to have a divine sense of morality.


  • Totally fair about the first comment. Its fair to say that jack black may have other reasons for trying to distance himself from it. But it was a huge decision to drop the tour and potentially the band based on one bad joke. Its got PR written all over it. But i accept that it might not be money, or at least not just about money.

    Second comment is more subjective. There are many who would disagree with you.

    Personally i think that if kyle, even if it was only in the moment, thought it was appropriate to make that joke then it should be taken as an indication of how scary it is that trump might become president again. That people laughed should be an indication that people dislike trump enough to not be shocked by the comment. The comments from people defending kyle should show that hatred for trump runs deep and perhaps it should be considered when determining what to do about this.

    If people are ok wih a joke about killing trump then maybe people should be looking more seriously at what trump is doing and what he stands for.