bearwithastick
What hardcore Linux users don't seem to really get is this: The vast majority of people who need to use computers simply do not care about anything you just said. They absolutely don't. They simply want to press a button to boot the device, use the apps they need and maybe even play a game and that's it. That is what Windows does for them.
The average user is overwhelmed when the desktop icons have been moved.
I love Linux and it is on a great way to being used by a wider audience and it's great it provides the freedom it does. But it still has its quirks that makes it too hard to use for 95% of users.
If you want Anarchism, just say so instead of using vague answers?
And the thing with "Educate yourself" is so fucking lazy and a dumbass argument if you claim to have the answer?
No, you are not elaborating on your better alternatives. We KNOW that democracy is nort perfect. We are just looking for a solution that is doable in todays world. So now you come in and claim to somehow have a better way to do it. But when questioned, your answers are very vague, we have to pull all the info out of your nose. This tells me you probably don't have any better solutions or just some vague idea of one and no real world application for it.
Of course I would try to work it out. But you just assume this always happens, but what if it DOESN'T?
So some form of tribalism? And what if you generally like living in your consensus community but one thing rubs you wrong and you're against it? You just leave and look for a community where you agree with everything 100% all the time? Good luck with that.
In a group.. you mean a very limited setting where you can discuss directly with everyone and get direct feedback in real time from everyone?
How do you suggest that this might work on a large scale, with millions of people?
Edit: And if for example 10 million people somehow found consensus and then one guy is like "lmao no", everything gets canned?
Why don't you enlighten us on the other options then? I'd love to hear it.
What I really, really do not understand about these companies is that they could have easily played both sides and come up on top anyway. They could have continued to make a shit ton of money with oil and simultaniously invest in renewable energies and become the big players in that field too.
But I guess paying off corrupt politicans is much easier.
I fucking hate these piece of shit cars. I will never not think that they all have to compensate for something.
For me, it is not relevant for the argument if it is presented as a parody or not.
Believe me, I get the gist of your point and I understand that even if you look at it in good faith, problems arise with her writing of the house elves slavery.
However, I have a problem with the statement that just because an author implements something in their world building and does not immediately make it very obvious, in whatever way, that this is a bad bad thing, makes them a supporter of said thing. Of course we never know the true intentions of the author but just assuming they wrote it so they support it is a bit of a stretch.
From this argument you could derive that every author, who builds a world with anything negative in it which is not opposed by the inhabitors of said world, automatically supports this in real life. As a bit of a crude example, in Warhammer 40k, criminal humans are lobotomized and are used as "Servitors". Almost no other human in this fantasy universe bats an eye at this. Nobody is accusing the authors of supporting slavery?
I can see where people take issue with the topic and how Rowling chose to write about it. But to accuse her of being pro-slavery because of that..?