LwL

joined 2 years ago
[–] LwL@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

I'm really not sure europe is very different there, beyond the fact that european countries as a whole are more culturally diverse than US states, or the US vs. Canada. And even then many people only travel to tourist destinations within europe that won't let you really experience a different local culture anyway.

It's still probably true that europeans experience a bit more cultural diversity because it's just easier to do, but I find it hard to blame the american people for that when so many are too poor to even think of traveling far, and experiencing something other than canada or mexico is significantly harder than to go e.g. from germany to romania.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Counterpoint: Without music streaming or pirating I wouldn't have discovered most of the artists I listen to. Artists of which I have bought concert tickets and merch (and in one case recurring support through youtube membership), and even just buying songs on bandcamp outright in spite of only listening via streaming.

Streaming is shit at generating revenue, but far far better at allowing artists to get noticed, which puts more power into the artists' hands rather than labels. "Support what you like through donations and merch" seems like a much better model overall (and has been proven to work), which also allows people with less money to enjoy the music while those with money to spare support it (and usually artists would want nothing more than for everyone to be able to enjoy their work, but they also have to live off something).

Though this is an outside perspective and I'd be interested in what actual musicians have to say about it, particularly those that have been making a living/significant money off it both before and after the event of streaming (and not the huge ones, because they never had any exposure issues).

There's also a chance that as a result of the discoverability, even if total money reaching the artists was unchanged, it's split over more recipients, so it's harder to actually make a living off it, but maybe easier to see at least some returns instead of it only being a money sink. Whether that'd be good or bad overall I can't say.

Also since this thread is about games, I don't think it really applies there since games are on average MUCH more expensive to make.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I mean yea that doesn't surprise me in the slightest honestly, even outside of the number itself being pretty meaningless in the first place it's very fuzzy what the actual dates are.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I never said it was the left lol, everything I said applies regardless of political leanings. Though in all likelihood there were at least some leftists that didn't.

Also the commenters that were saying as much on this extremely left leaning platform are probably the ones mainly adressed by OP.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Both can be true. The major US parties are both rotten to the core and as such the leadership of the democrats has much of the responsibility for this, but people not voting are still fascism enablers, albeit to a lesser degree than those voting for trump for non-fascism reasons.

Voting third party is one thing, it's the only way outside of revolution you're going to escape from the established two parties. Not voting only signals apathy and the only explicit statement is "I'm ok with whoever wins, including the raping racist hitler v2".

[–] LwL@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Average. It's just an average. I haven't verified whether the number is accurate (and often it's probably debatable what qualifies as an empire and at what point it fell) but some empires lasting way longer does nothing to disprove 250 years being the average lifespan.

The second part of what you said is still entirely correct of course, that number has no real predictive capabilities for the collapse of the USA.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Yes, my point was that the degree of that just differs. People that truly don't mask at all are usually insufferable, autistic or not. Autistic people however often need to suppress most of their entire personalities. For example many people will react to you negatively for not making eye contact when talking, which for most autistic people is not something that comes naturally. They will also interpret things into your words based on facial expressions. When I'm talking to someone and they can see my face I have to constantly consider where to look (can't just stare them into the eyes either) and what to do with my facial muscles (which still doesn't guarantee I'm doing the right thing for the other person to understand my actual feelings). From everything I've read, neurotypical people don't have that issue. (And this is the masking we mran that can destroy you and feel like you lose your real personality if you never get lucky enough to find people you can be more relaxed around - especially when in school it mostly just means being bullied)

And then there are sensory issues (thankfully I mainly struggle with scents and some textures, which are overall not an issue that often, but many struggle with noise) which multiply all the annoyance that anyone has from loud noises, bad smells or whatever tenfold. And you also get annoyed at a far lower threshhold that neurotypical brains just filter out automatically.

The masking pressure autistic people have to deal is just more constant and more consistent, but of course everyone has their own shit to deal with.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The difference in severity is literally why masking in autistic people is a symptom and something that often negatively affects us, while for non-autistic people it's mostly kinda whatever. It's totally possible to not be autistic and heavily mask to the point where it's negatively affecting you too, but when you're autistic that's the norm and you're the lucky one if you never experienced it.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago

Then they can accept that I won't do whatever thing they want me to do, because I don't exist to serve them?

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Glad I now have friends that are entirely in agreement that waiting is pointless.

I would highly disagree it signifying you as anything special, it's a random ass social norm that serves no real purpose. But yes as I've said I'm well aware how it makes some ppl feel so I wait when eating with anyone I don't know well. And sure it's not hard now, which is the part where I mentioned this kind of thing mostly happened when I was a kid.

Honestly that reaction is just proving my point lol

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Yeah, these opinion polls really should be more taken as a desire to move closer (as the article says). I doubt the people voting actually know everything that joining the EU would entail, but it's still valid as a general "getting closer to the EU".

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

Usually when it's things that are "socially expected" but don't make sense to me in that moment. Like being asked to wait with eating food until everyone has some (still don't really get it, but "it's a social norm and people will feel bad" is sufficient for adult me since it's really nbd. As a kid no one even explained that far though, just that it'a a thing you do because you do.).

In general as an adult its been pretty rare since I've learned it's not worth the effort (and whatever if it makes people happy then cool), and if I really don't wanna do something I consider pointless (like wearing a suit - which I'd first have to buy - to a wedding in 30° heat as someone who is already very uncomfortable in shorts and t shirt in 22°) people are more likely to respect it because they can't really force me anymore.

I do think the more common one (that still happens a bunch) is when providing the why, or more generally when providing extra information. It seems to me people often assume I'm overly criticizing when I do that. Like "can you add this thing to the sheet I think it'd be helpful when <3 sentences of the context in which I think it's good to have>" tends to get worse reactions than "can you add this thing to the sheet I think it'd be helpful".

So same as the food thing, maybe it's more about wanting far more detailed explanations than about wanting one at all. But to me the less detailed one often doesn't feel like a real explanation, moreso a justification.

view more: next ›