Rottcodd

I sincerely believe that if any aliens are observing us, they've concluded that we actually value and reward insanity and loathe and punish sanity.

And they wouldn't be entirely wrong...

I doubt it, particularly because it's almost certainly the case that the people who deride it when others do it do it themselves in other situations.

It's far and away most common in partisan politics, and it happens because the simple fact of the matter is that most professional politicians and political parties are loathsome slimeballs, and the only thing a partisan can dependably say in support of their preferences is that they're (purportedly) better than the alternative. So it's nearly always the case that in attempting to defend or advocate for their preference, they'll bring up the alternative and shift focus to them.

And then they'll potentially turn right around and deride their opponents for doing the same.

It doesn't matter what you, I or (almost) anyone else thinks about much of anything here.

You say that you're "well aware of the decentralized aspect of Lemmy," but apparently you really haven't thought it through.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no mechanism by which any self-appointed "we" can do anything.

The instance owners are entirely free to run their instances as they prefer, and the community owners are entirely free to run their communities as they prefer, and that really is that.

Because it's basically saying that you're so dull or lazy or unimaginative that you can't even manage to come up with a post of your own, and so pathetic and needy that you're just going to copy someone else's.

That's not uncommon in trades - plumbing, construction, auto mechanics and the like.

There are tricks and techniques that one can learn over time to make things easier or more efficient, but they're often complex enough or require enough skill and experience that if you don't know what you're doing, you're just going to unnecessarily screw things up trying. So new people are taught the standard, safe, dependable way of doing things, even if that's not the way the old hands do it.

Edit to add: in a moral context rather than a practical one, I don't think it ever is appropriate. IMO, the first requirement for any moral stance is that one abide by it oneself, and unless and until one has managed to accomplish that most basic of tasks, one has no standing by which to even meaningfully comment on other people's behavior.

Tremors. It's just pretty much flawless.

Yes - I know lots of childless genXers, including myself.

I think we were the first generation to see the bullshit fairly clearly, but we weren't even close to being in a position to do anything about it.

The earlier generations generally didn't see it, and the boomers only saw parts of it - they were too easily distracted by their own greed and self-indulgence. Stuck in the shadows as we were, and growing up right in the middle of it - in the world after the Kennedy/King assassinations and Vietnam and Watergate and OPEC and stagflation and Iran/Contra and on and on and on - we couldn't really miss it. But we've never had any real influence (other than our brief but notable time at the vanguard of music, art and fashion), so it mostly just left us sort of cynical and detached. It's fallen to the later generations to get fired up enough to maybe do something about it.

And yeah - my plan too has long been to mostly keep a low profile, try to share a bit of what hopefully amounts to wisdom, then slip off-stage before the inevitable shit hits the inevitable fan.

Invisibility is the defining characteristic of Generation X.

When Douglas Coupland popularized the term in his novel of the same name, that was an awful lot of the point. Generation X was the generation that just sort of fell through the cracks, lost in the shadow of the baby boomers.

Over the years, we've just adapted to it, and really, at this point, it's sort of nice to be forgotten. We can just sit on the sidelines, munching on popcorn, offering up a bit of snidely cynical commentary and reminiscing about great music, great times and great hair.

It's rare that someone can and will reach inside themselves and tear out a big chunk of pain or doubt or longing or fear and show it to the world, and that much rarer that they'll manage to do it without seeming self-indulgent - in such a way that it's ultimately not about them, but about what we all share.

Mike Ness is one of the best at that. Obviously, at some level, he writes and sings about himself, but it never really feels like it's about him. It feels like it's about me. And you. And all of us.

Generally, for me, it means something less than entirely "good."

The times I'm most likely to use it are when I'm finding minor fault with something - "Well... it was pretty good, but..." or when something is better than I expected, but not quite fully good - "Hey! That was actually pretty good!"

Hmm...

I have pretty low expectations for shounen yakuza anything, but that was kinda promising.

I would assume that first and foremost it's that, as the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And disabled people and their advocates aren't squeaky enough.

Cynically, I think there's another explanation...

I think a lot of activism doesn't actually generate meaningful results. To some significant degree, it just serves as something for people to fight over and politicians to fundraise and campaign on.

To serve those purposes though, it has to be controversial - there has to be a basis on which one party can take a stance in favor and the other a stance opposed. And another handy feature of that sort of activism is that it doesn't have to actually be enacted, and in fact, it's better for the politicians if it's not. That means that the ones who supported it can fundraise and run merely on having supported it and on the need to counter the evil other party who opposed it, while those who opposed it can fundraise and run merely on having opposed it and on the need to counter the evil other party who proposed it. And since no money was spent on any program, that's that much more money the politicians can funnel to their cronies. It's basically free publicity with a bit of "Let's you and them fight" mixed in.

And LGBT might as well have been tailor-made for that exact purpose.

But with something like advocacy for the disabled, there's no basis on which either party could dare oppose it, so there's nothing to fight over, and worse yet, if it's proposed, there's no excuse for not passing it, which means they'd have to pay for it, and that's money that they'd rather be funneling to their cronies.

So politicians mostly just ignore it.