While I think studies like this are bunk, I think it’s a mistake to assume that there is no real effect on cognitive health.

We know that using LLMs is addictive. I can’t imagine that long term use is going to be as benign as long term use of a calculator.

If he does, it might be the first time a man has ever made me cream my pants

More well thought out than your original comment

Ah yes, Australia, famously immune from capitalism

I’m very sorry for your losses. I suspect that my own quality of life has been severely affected by undiagnosed curable health issues, and I’ll be genuinely surprised if I make it into old age.

Capitalism has murdered and continues to murder countless human lives.

Almost everyone in the family and community in which I was raised believes that human-caused climate change is not real. They believe that all climate change is a wholly unavoidable phenomenon that is just part of the earth’s natural cycle.

You can imply that no one has actually been fooled by the oil industry’s propaganda all you want, but it’s both incorrect & unproductive to do so.

True, it is much harder than it used to be to catch the oppressor class off guard.

But given how hard they work to discourage us from even nonviolently protesting, I suspect that they understand that once we truly collectively achieve class consciousness, it’s over for them.

I’d attribute this to two main factors:

1. The wealth inequality we’re dealing with has a higher ceiling (and higher floor) than the wealth inequality in pre-revolution France. We’re poor and hurting financially, but most of us are still able survive day-to-day without viscerally feeling the effects of our poverty.

2. The internet keeps us apart. Pre-internet, people built communities, coalitions, and armies much more effectively because they weren’t so isolated in their homes, and so paralyzed by screens.

EDIT: the advent of suburbanism & carcentric infrastructure is another factor that keeps us more isolated than past populations have been. People used to live right alongside each other and their communities used to be walkable. The most disadvantaged among us (and therefore the most personally motivated to mobilize) are also the most limited by carcentric infrastructure.

I’ll acknowledge that saying it’s a dog whistle every time was slightly hyperbolic.

However, I’d argue that the claim that the global human population is declining too rapidly is actually pretty hotly contested. The world’s population is still growing — around 8.2 billion now, heading toward a peak near 10.3 billion in the 2080s.

That being said, in some countries there will be a surplus of retirees and not enough workers to fund them through the existing tax structure, which is a legitimate problem. But it’s a problem best remedied through better social safety nets, not by popping out more babies.

The biggest contention I have with the concern over population decline is that population decline doesn’t matter at all if we don’t adequately address climate change within the next decade. If someone’s house is actively on fire and they express concern to me that their roof should be re-shingled, I’m not going to give a shit about their roof shingles until I’m certain their roof will survive the fire.

First of all, no, it isn’t. Like, textually isn’t.

Then explain the “Liberals” part of the meme.

The problem isn’t lack of housing, it’s using housing as commodities. If you can create a system that can build millions of shitty crumbling concrete gravestones, you’d better use fraction of this system’s power to make laws that prevent commodification of housing, so it becomes affordable, and this will be the better outcome.

I agree

The premise of the meme is that the problem of affordable housing could be very easily solved if the western world was willing to acknowledge that sometimes socialists have good ideas.

This would not necessarily solve the problem of affordable quality housing, but it would be a very effective step in the right direction.

No one said they were being used by choice. The very reason behind their original purpose was precisely because people didn’t have anywhere else to live, not because they thought people would genuinely choose to live there over a normal home.

Yeah, people worried about “population decline” are actually concerned about their preferred race/religion losing political & cultural power.

It’s a dog whistle every time

I’m not a citizen of your shithole country

I know, I can see which instance you’re on. My original comment applies to you just as much as it does to any American.

Regardless, I am still definitely making way more of an effort to stop fascism than the average American.

You don’t know that, and we have no reason to believe you, but keep patting yourself on the back while vomiting your unregulated anxiety & despair at strangers on the internet, ig

“We have DARVO at home”

the DARVO at home:

Eh, it’s not worse on Lemmy than I’ve seen it on any other platform, but yeah, you’re not wrong. If we think there’s nothing we can do, we will do just that.

The only hope left is that there are some true Americans left in the military that are able to work together.

This is not the only hope left, this is just one of the more ideal solutions.

Hopes not high for that either, as it would have happened by now. It’s never going to happen from the general public. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I really need people who say doomer shit like this to:

1. Reflect on whether their words encourage solution-oriented thinking, or unproductive doom spirals

2. Learn some emotional regulation

The exact context in which the word “quality” was used, since you seem to have glossed over it was:

they were made with enough quality that they are still used today

No one said that these are high quality homes. They said that the caliber of build was strong enough to still be inhabitable 80ish years later.

When you discuss you and me that makes it obviously personal, so I’m not sure why the irony escapes you.

Yes, discussing my personal thoughts and feelings is personal, and criticizing your words is also personal, I agree. But I used the word “personal” to describe being offended. I was not offended, as the initial comment to which I was responding was a broad comment about the U.S. I have no reason to take offense at that.

when I clearly said voting and protesting would be the solution in a civilised society.

You did not say this in your initial comment, you said it in your response to my comment. My original criticism of your original comment stands. You did not speak of any solution until I criticized you for not being solution-oriented in your comment.

I agree 100%