These links might be helpful in understanding the conservative mindset:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
Conservatives want the existing social/economic/power hierarchies to be conserved because:
- they believe that the hierarchies maintain stability.
- they believe that the hierarchies benefit them.
- they believe there is some kind of natural order to these hierarchies. e.g. rich/white/male/straight/cis people rise to the top.
In my opinion/experience conservatives are more dishonest and are more accepting of dishonest tactics being used as long as they believe it is beneficial to their cause. E.g. everyone knows Trump lie’s all the time, its just conservatives don’t care.
Is your goal to change this persons mind, or is your goal to change the audiences mind?
You are unlikely to convince this person of anything in a debate because they will not enter an honest debate. @tronk@lemmy.ml has posted links that talk about this more.
If you want to convince everyone else then you should have talking points:
Pop shell enables tiling. Gnome should have tiling by default imo, considering that the point of gnome is that it is keyboard-centric.
I really like the pop os tiling extension for gnome and hope they will continue to develop that.
I do like the launcher in pop OS as well, I think having a small overlay window pop up is less jarring than having the whole screen change like in the GNOME applications/over view. But the GNOME applications view does more than just launch applications, you can search directly for settings, files and new packages. I really just want the GNOME applications view but in some kind of launcher program (something like kde krunner).
Firefox relay can be used in a similar way, it lets you use a randomly generated email address that will forward to your actual email address. Its not perfect though, there is a email size restriction and you are limited to 5 aliases.
There are a few services that do this forwarding thing actually:
On the one hand the idea of personal property isn’t exactly based in morality, personal property is what you can acquire/keep/defend (and what your ancestors could acquire/keep/defend).
On the other hand, people have worked to produce the things in shops and should arguably be compensated.
Is the world a better place if you have the goods that you would steal or if the shops has those goods? You might be able to spend the money you saved on helping people, whereas otherwise it would just go to shareholders. But maybe by shoplifting you are damaging a service that brings people value.
Who would actually be harmed? The workers or the owners? This will have a different answer from business to business.
It also depends on your situation. Maybe society owes everyone a basic standard of living. If you have no source of income and no means to buy anything then maybe it is justified to just take things from those that have more?
Points I am seeing raised:
- If outlawed guns will be available through the black market anyway. But now they will be unregulated.
- Guns are needed to violently rebel against your government.
If 1. is true the rebellion will be able to get guns. So there is not much of a problem in terms of 2. for outlawing guns.
Maybe armies in authoritarian societies are especially strict. However they are (I think always) more strict/hierarchical than the society they belong to. This makes me think there is something about fighting that causes this structure. Maybe because hierarchies are effective in war? Maybe because the demographic who join armies are more naturally inclined to accept/support hierarchies?
The exception I was thinking of were International Brigades in the Spanish civil war. Some of which were anarchist e.g. Durruti Column. I am sure there are other examples but this is the first one that comes to mind.
Thanks, I didn’t know he responded to the video. I have read the comments and don’t think they excuse (or really try to address) the main concerns in Tom’s video.
He says this:
Hey there so I finally watched your video. You raise some strong points (I had only seen the thumbnail when someone sent it to me and figured it was a conspiracy theory about me.) I’m deleting my original comment cuz it’s snarky and undermining. Not warranted for what seems like a well constructed set of arguments against my WEF video. You raise useful points about ethics and journalism in a YouTube context. The short answer to your concerns is that 1. I may not agree with you on where the ethical line is in journalism and working with think tanks to tell stories I feel are compelling. And 2. The video I made with the WEF was the product of me having read a pre order copy of the book (cuz I like books like this) and pitching the WEF on sponsoring a video on the topic of the duck graph. They agreed. I made the video. They didn’t write the script. They didn’t see the script. They didn’t have any creative or editorial influence in the work. They did really solid research and analysis for their book and I wanted to make a video that unpacked it. I think it’s reasonable if you disagree with my decision. But I feel comfortable having done this work. Overall, I’m impressed with your writing and presentation skills in this vid. Well researched and connecting useful dots to make your point. You have a new sub!
TLDR: 1. Johnny has different ideas about journalistic ethics. 2. This case was special because he was interested in the subject and approached the WEF about making the video.
Then Tom asks him to clarify some more stuff that was in the video:
- How did you come into possession of an advance copy of Stakeholder Capitalism?
- Why does an amended version of the script for the video appear on the WEF website as part of the Davos Agenda blogs?
- In addition to this, why does the blogpost version of the video feature both yourself and Peter Vanham as authors of the piece?
- Can you see how it might seem convenient that, as you describe it, you happened to approach the WEF out-of-the-blue asking if they wanted to sponsor a video at just the right time for it to launch alongside the Davos Agenda PR campaign, a campaign where they’ve specifically been looking to expand their reach on YouTube in ways they haven’t before (ie. The Davos Daily with Lilly Singh).
Johnny does not address these arguments. He says he wants the debate to be about the content of the video (Not the fact that the WEF paid to have it created).
An example of where this has happened is shown in this video by Tom Nicholas: https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=Dum0bqWfiGw
The TLDR is:
- Capitalism if wildly unpopular with young people in many western countries.
- The world economic forum is an organization funded by mega-corporations/capitalists.
- The world economic forum pay for a video to be made by a creator that is popular with young people in western countries.
- In this video there is some kind of bullshit/propaganda about how capitalism can work when you have this vague concept of stakeholders.
I guess there is an idea that some things need to be centrally planned/governed and it is unrealistic/idealistic to think that Anarchism can work effectively in some cases.
E.g. Armies are generally very strict hierarchies for a reason. Power and information are centralized. If power and information are decentralized then it is harder plan and execute plans.
I think that centralized societies (or elements in society) can more easily attack/defend themselves so Anarchist societies/elements are usually constrained somehow, either constrained to a small geographic area or to certain aspects of society (e.g. the internet/open source software).
Seaspiracy, a filmmaker sets out to document the harm humans do to marine life and uncovers alarming global corruption. …
We are living through strange days. Across Britain, Europe and America societies have become split and polarised. There is anger at the inequality and the ever growing corruption - and a widespread distrust of the elites. Into this has come the pandemic that has brutally dramatised those divisions. …
They do make money from people running linux in the cloud but they will still make money if people run windows (or an EEE version of linux in the cloud).
They will always want more control of the OS people use as it will always be more profitable for them.