IdiocyInAction
No bio...
User ID: 695
IdiocyInAction
2yr ago
Most of my thoughts on this are driven by the practicalities of things we can do right now; I see no reason, assuming all technological restraints were lifted, that anyone shouldn't be able to do anything they want with their bodies.
I honestly think outside of a small (mostly religious) minority, most people feel that way. The issue is mostly about societal acceptance of trans people and about what others think of them.
IdiocyInAction
2yr ago
I am unconvinced targeted ads are worse for humanity than untargeted ads. (Cf. freedom torches). I watched some legacy TV a couple of years back and I was struck by how manipulative the ads were - ads for car companies weren't espousing the car's superior features, but making people feel bad for not having a nice car, ads for cosmetic products showing beautiful people, making people associate the product with beauty and making them feel bad for their own inadequacy, etc.
Not to mention faux-sponsorships and influencers and the like.
Targeted ads I received felt better than this, though I mostly browse with AdBlock on, so I don't get a lot of them. A friend of mine owns a small business and he says Google Ads are great, if a bit of a zero-sum game.
IdiocyInAction
2yr ago
Do you not think animals have moral worth?
Varies by animal/species. Most people ascribe no to negative worth to bacteria, little to negative worth to insects and more worth to higher animals like birds, mammals, reptiles and humans. I think the amount of moral worth ascribed to animals is proportional to how much they can elicit empathy responses from us and how similar they are to us (e.g. intelligence), hence the fervent hate on sites like Reddit et al. to anyone who hurts dogs, cats, etc (who evolved to look like human babies through domestication).
I personally ascribe some moral worth to animals, but it's not enough to make me feel bad about eating meat. I place them closer to the ants and bacteria than to humans.
I think a big effect that happened over the last 10-20 years is that niche, "nerdy" media like video games have become more mainstream and thus reviewers are targeting a different demographic. No longer are they targeting weird, mostly male nerds, but more like Joe Average, which means their content is less useful to people like me. That also explains why I find most modern AAA games boring and why I still find useful information from people and creators who are more like me.
I really notice that when playing older games from the "golden age" of PC gaming in the late 90s to mid 2000s; they are often more mechanically complex and have much more complex plots than modern titles, simply because that is something players appreciated at the time and appreciate less now.
So yeah, I think it's mostly demographic shifts in who consumes this kind of media which drive this.
More options
Context Copy link