I don’t think people are downplaying them, what you’re replying to is good healthy advice. Also Lemmy skews left and modern leftists tend to take a harm reduction stance on drugs and speak very openly and non-judgementally about them.

How “healthy” it is to attend holiday gatherings with your family depends entirely on your family’s chud ratio.

If being a realist means compromising your values before negotiations even begin and calling that strategy then yes that is going to be very poorly received.

Are you doing it for sport or are you doing it to meet nutritional needs in lieu of factory farming / expensive and mass-produced plant proteins? This might be a controversial take but IMO hunting wild game can be morally superior to going vegan using supermarket products because of the ecologically destructive nature of modern industrial agriculture. Hunting can be done responsibly in a way that does not harm or even benefits the ecosystem, but it’s very difficult to exercise moral discretion in all of your grocery purchases due to a lack of transparency in supply chains.

The corporate media would obfuscate the socialist character of the revolution and call it an anti-communist revolution.

Man I just love living nearby to a uranium enrichment facility. It’s nice to know I’ll be killed in the first nuclear exchange instead of having to suffer the aftermath.

If the property is under the control of a single person it isn’t collectivized, It’s privatized. The only reason communists consider property centralized under the control of the state to be collectivized is because they consider the state to be representative of the working class. Personally as an anarchist I think centralization under the state is just another form of privatization because the state - in reality - is not truly representative of the will of the people no matter how democratic it is, though I still consider it preferable for the means of production to be under the control of a democratic state than a few psychopathic billionaires.

Sam Altman lamented in an interview where he was asked about the RAM supply shortages (that he is partly responsible for) that it’s terribly inefficient for “a bunch of the world’s limited supply of DRAM” to be sitting in people’s personal computers and suggested it would be much more efficient to centralize it all in (his) data centers where it would be more fully utilized (charged by usage at a rate that he sets, of course).

Corporations don’t have ideologies, only financial incentives and strategic marketing.

I do see a problem with dumb people following rich people, which is why I’m a socialist. I don’t see Hasan as a leader, I see him as a comrade. Socialism is not a poverty cult, the rich can be class traitors too and it matters where their money came from and if they’re honest about it. Hasan also puts his money where his mouth is, donating to campaigns, mobilizing his audience to campaign, funding and fundraising for causes like the PCRF, and delivering aid to and platforming Cubans suffering under US sanctions. Anyone who consistently delivers materially to the working class deserves the benefit of the doubt.

A first-person perspective will give you the best view.

On the matter of nepotism, his uncle is Cenk Uygur who is the co-creator of The Young Turks (a progressive news show). Hasan acknowledges that he benefited from nepotism to launch his career as a political commentator since he got his start working for The Young Turks with his uncle. It’s not like he hides it or presents himself as “self-made” or any other bullshit like that, so I don’t really have a problem with it either.

This quote is from a satirical comedy bit where he is playing a character imitating a specific archetype of a conservative at the time. The video even includes a disclaimer that it is satire, so if you saw a clip of him saying that and just believed it then it shows that you don’t even do the bare minimum of checking context.

And the precedent’s already set by big ag companies patenting genetically modified crops.

I agree completely. Though I personally practice harm reduction at the ballot box, I don’t believe that brow-beating people who express a reluctance to vote for a lesser evil into practicing harm reduction is an effective means of garnering their vote. Though it’s easy to become frustrated with non-voters or third-party voters and place the blame on them for fascism taking over, the responsibility is really spread across the whole population, and most importantly our electeds and party officials who have consistently failed to present a positive and opposing narrative to the fascists.

So we’re just going to hash this out every single day for the next 2 years, huh?

Edit: I do find it interesting how many replies to this comment are vague enough that you can’t determine which side of this argument they’re on, but I guess I did start it myself.

This sort of randomness seems more like the text produced by a markov chain than a modern LLM.

Hell my most played steam game, rimworld, I initially pirated and dropped before trying again later on and buying.

Back in the day you could buy Rimworld directly from the developer’s website and that shit was portable. I played it off a flash drive on my high school computers. Did the same thing with FTL as well. Most of my hours in those games are not logged, lol.

And here I again wonder where your from to have such a mindset

Why does it matter?

These people aren’t politicians…

That does not make them a purely objective and neutral third party, particularly when they are funded/employed by a state.

You’ve not seen Dutch news. They don’t talk about hate speech as an equally valid option to our constitution the way that you’d expect with the current voting patterns and government composition if your statement were true.

I presented two different examples of how they can be biased; you have ruled out the latter and not the former. I don’t even need to have seen Dutch news because you have actually expressed their percieved bias yourself, though you don’t realize it. Supporting the validity of the constitution of their state government is a bias, regardless of whether or not you believe that to be a good thing. This is the status quo bias I mentioned.

I think you perceive the word bias to have a negative connotation, but it is actually a neutral term. A bias in favor of human rights, for example, is IMO a good thing.

You can be completely factual and still biased by the language you use and what you choose to focus on. Publicly-funded media is great and all, but that’s because its bias is obvious and upfront, not because it is unbiased. Attempting to be purely objective leads either to a status quo bias or a “centrist” bias where multiple extremes are presented as being equally valid.