Prying into who downvoted what is literally built into piefed. This was unfortunately predictable.

As always, companies aren’t people, they are comprised of people. Not all of these people are diabolically evil. And even then, likely the people making the diabolically evil decisions have some streak in them that’s not diabolically evil.

For example, you can’t honestly say that none of the Disney movies had any positive effect on people. Same with stuff that Nintendo does.

Sure, overall the verdict is “diabolically evil”. But there are positives within the overwhelmingly negative.

But this community is on Lemmy. No matter where you’re accessing it from, you’re using Lemmy in the end. You might use Lemmy with a piefed or mbin frontend.

You can deny it if you want, but anyone who can view this is a Lemmy user.

The argument for “you can’t consent to being born” does have a direct opposite argument: you also can’t not consent to birth. The birth is what gives the ability to consent or not in the first place. You could argue that by being anti-natalist you’re taking someone’s potential to give consent completely away, which is the same or more unethical, you’re essentially deciding for someone else that they should die/not exist without them getting a say in it?

You can do the same with suffering: life is happiness, everyone I know was happy sometime in their life (even if only as a child), so you’re doing serious harm by not allowing people to have happiness since only people who exist can be happy.

I think anti-natalism is a philosophy mainly held by very traumatized people and/or that live in very bad conditions.

We know (roughly) how to handle trauma, we know (roughly) what makes good conditions. We know roughly what makes people happy or what makes them suffer. We have the potential to create a world where being born is mostly positive for everyone.

In that sense, currently, I think mostly people that are well off should have children, ones that can actually support children properly. However, that is obviously not a permanent solution, since the end goal should be for everyone to be well off and to be able to support children.

But part of the suffering in the world is also caused by too many people. We can’t have infinite population growth while living in a world with finite resources. As such, we need to limit how many children people can have (which is already happening by availability of birth control and smarter people, able to make a choice if they want to have kids).

So in total, I don’t think birth/existence is either good or bad, but it has the potential to be both depending on how we handle it.

I mean I hate streaming services too and download my music, never used Spotify. I use rateyourmusic and listenbrainz if I want recommendations, or threads like this or other word of mouth.

deleted by creator

What kind of “statements” does classical music make? For me instrumental music just sounds nice, or it doesn’t. No statement involved.

So music for you only means something if it’s political?

Like 30% of my music is instrumental, many others who have voices but no distinguishable words, and some of those are my most favorite music ever. I almost never listen to the words in music.

I honestly kinda wonder why you’d post on social media if not to speak to people in some way. I mean someone agreeing with you/liking what you posted and adding nothing is fine, but doing it only for that, what’s the point?

My dude, no one listens to radio anymore, when you can have your own music with you on a device you carry around in your pocket all the time.

I’m a 90s kid and I never got into music like this. I always had single songs I liked, including from RatM, Nirvana etc but I never really cared about more than 1 or 2 songs of any individual artist, or albums. I just didn’t like the other songs.

I assume the reason why you have these “recognizable” names was solely because music was sold in albums. People couldn’t reaaaally get music conveniently any other way. And only the biggest ones could afford to produce albums in the first place. So even if you liked 1 or 2 songs only, you were “forced” to buy the whole album and since you got it already, why not listen to the rest. And since you didn’t have infinite money to buy infinite albums you listened to the same ones again and again.

I never really did that. I bought an album and actually only listened to one song or I bought compilations. I never cared about a particular artist, only about songs. The current music acquisition process is perfect for me, I find plenty of amazing songs everywhere. Do I know the artist of my songs? Not really, and I don’t care. When I meet someone, we listen to each other’s music together. I vibe with and pick single new songs from them. We don’t bond over artists, we bond over music. I think everything is perfect that way.

Edit: just one German example of a popular song that many people here know that criticizes shit here in the country: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y-B0lXnierw

With the difference that code actually is easily changeable, if you need to change a wall you actually need to tear it down, get rid of the waste, likely tear everything down that was supported by it, and completely rebuild it with new materials.

If you need to change the foundations of your code, yes, it’s not always super easy, but it is actually possible and I’ve done it before without super big headaches.

It’s just not comparable.

Sooo jealous, can’t even contain myself. You’re pretty close to Jeff Bezos level here

It’s just gradual improvement and creativity. This means just tackle each problem individually, whenever you have the strength to, and solve it in a way that works for you, because “traditional” solutions likely won’t work for you.

It’s essentially “keep fighting” but expressed in a way that it isn’t really a fight, you can do this improvement relaxed as well.

For example, I’ve at some time adjusted my field of work to be 100% remote, and now I’m seeing how to change even that. I’ve eliminated Interactions with undesired people almost completely.

All other “solutions” in this thread are so funny to me. People thinking more efficient/more sustainable stuff will change anything. Solar panels and whatever still need to be produced, causing emissions. If you continue growing infinitely, you’re going to cause infinite emissions with that.

This would have almost 0 impact on climate change. It wouldn’t stop new stuff being produced and bought, people still want shinier things than they had yesterday, long lasting or not. It’d be a positive change, but not for climate change.

Yes, for example. Or by not watching the content in the first place. Change never happened because everything worked kinda ok, it happened when things stopped working. The french revolution didn’t happen because everyone was well fed.

If sponsored content stops being a viable income method, either the video will stop existing or new ways of monetization will be discovered. New ways of monetization may be “let’s just collectively pay artists so they can make videos”. Of course that’s unlikely, but it’s more likely than continuing with what we do right now.

No, we want everyone to not need a monetary reward anymore and just get enough to live regardless of what they choose to do with their time.

Congrats, you fell victim to propaganda!