I’m seeing one too many people blaming social media for this and social media for that because it’s just simply - social media. I think about this because I believe that you shouldn’t blame the tool because it is a tool, but blame the person who uses the tool for their intent.

Which means I’m on the side of the camp that actually knows lots of people abuse social media and has it demonized. It’s absolutely silly to just blame a concept or an idea for just being as is. So everyone else is going around blaming and blaming social media for their problems. Not too much the individuals that have contaminated it with their empty-brained existences.

And we all know that some of the more popular social media platforms are controlled by devoid-of-reality sychophants in Zuck, Spez, Musk that sways and stirs the volume of people on their platform with their equally as devoid ideas in how to manage.

Social Media, whether you like it or not, has a use. It’s a useful tool to engage with eachother as close as possible. Might be a bit saturated with many platforms to choose from.

But I just think social media being blamed for just being as is, is such a backwards way of thinking.

  • aasatru@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Leftists and other assorted humanists and progressives are wildly unpopular because most of the public simply can’t imagine not having the sheer bloodlust they have for thy neighbor.

    Believe it or not, this is not a necessity of human nature. It’s just your society that’s fucked up. And it’s probably not even that bad if you go out and talk to people rather than judge society by the distorted reflection given on social media.

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I talk to people every day. Statistically, they’d vote to take my rights away so I keep my wits about me though and thank god each day we don’t live in an actual democracy lest minority blood will run in the streets.

      If there’s anything I can agree with rightoids on, it’s that the average person should have absolutely no say in anything that happens to them and god forbid anyone else, all I want is a woke dictatorship at this point where the masses are very openly and directly brainwashed unto humanist ideals by elites who know what’s good for them, except these elites should be ethical scientists, “woke moralists”, other experts and humanists and not a handful of ultra-wealthy morons.

      Social media is just a canvas for the average joe to show his true colours. I for one don’t like what I see, but I don’t blame the canvas for the paint our species chose.

      • aasatru@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, I’m not going to make the argument that people are fundamentally good either, and they are shaped by the media landscape they consume.

        I live in a country where trans rights are not really questioned, and where I am feeling confident that they won’t be. Of course it still has ways to go and there are bad people, but trans rights have not become effectively politicized and it’s just not a point of contention.

        It’s no fundamental rule of society that we have to go around hating each other. It’s a construct. That doesn’t mean it’s not the case where you live, but it’s something that can be changed.

    • iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Believe it or not, this is not a necessity of human nature. It’s just your society that’s fucked up.

      Do you look at the prisoner’s dilemma and conclude that cooperation is the obvious answer?

      • aasatru@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        The prisoner’s dilemma depends on the fact that the two prisoners cannot cooperate. If you allow information to flow between them it’s literally not a dilemma any more.

        So yes.

        If you mean cooperation with the police, how the hell did you derive that from my text?

        • aasatru@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I should also add that the prisoner’s dilemma is only a dilemma when it is played in only one round. Once it becomes a game of several rounds cooperation arises as the dominant strategy.

          Then again, I’m not sure how the prisoner’s dilemma is relevant here in the first place, I just thought it was a funny point to make.

          • iii@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            only a dilemma when it is played in only one round.

            There is no fixed solution for the repeated case:

            in such a simulation, tit-for-tat will almost always come to dominate, though nasty strategies will drift in and out of the population because a tit-for-tat population is penetrable by non-retaliating nice strategies, which in turn are easy prey for the nasty strategies. Dawkins showed that here, no static mix of strategies forms a stable equilibrium, and the system will always oscillate between bounds

            (1)

            • aasatru@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              For cooperation to emerge between rational players, the number of rounds must be unknown or infinite. In that case, “always defect” may no longer be a dominant strategy. As shown by Robert Aumann in a 1959 paper, rational players repeatedly interacting for indefinitely long games can sustain cooperation.