7 ms·

In particular, Susan was a lovely soul and specifically deserves all of our respect. If you want to hate, then hate the game, not the player (especially in thi

by asah 2y ago

In particular, Susan was a lovely soul and specifically deserves all of our respect. If you want to hate, then hate the game, not the player (especially in this case).

somenameforme 2y ago
This saying never made sense to me as a game is only a game if there are players.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  The point of the saying is that the player is not necessarily in position to change the rules, or at least not in the immediate short term. How far one wants to accept this as acceptable reasoning is a subjective matter.
  - sleeplessworld 2y ago
    Or maybe not that subjective when looked at closer. It may just as well be a saying that the entitled classes use to defend their selfish and less than good behaviour. Beacause the classes of the not-entitled buy this as somehow having reasonable meaning. The entitled classes have no reason to change rules that are clearly stacked in their favour. But it sounds way better to say the rules cannot be changed. But it is hard to see why this should be self-evidently true.
  - wruza 2y ago
    You can offset basically anything with it. It's another way to say "it's just a collection of atoms working by the laws of nature". Most of these proverbs are just selling bs.
- matwood 2y ago
  A good example is taxes. Many people think the 'rich', including the rich, should pay more. Every tax form in the US has a spot where you are free to write in a larger amount to send, but I wonder how many actually do? Unless the game ends collectively, it doesn't make sense to stop playing. I will continue to pay as little taxes as possible until the game is changed.
vintermann 2y ago
I'm sure she was, but I did not personally know her and I'm pretty sure few others here did as well. It's newsworthy for what she was, her role, not really for who she was as a person. I certainly wouldn't mind reading some personal eulogies about what a great mentor her was etc., or about how she influenced your life with her work even if you didn't know her. But I also don't mind reading critical posts about the role she played, I think that's part of the picture for someone who's famous as a business leader. If people weren't willing to speak freely about the dead, we wouldn't have had the Nobel prizes.
briandear 2y ago
She censored things because of politics. That’s not “lovely.” YouTube has videos on the dangers of GMO crops, despite the scientific consensus for their safety and utility. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959534/#cit0001 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959534/#cit000... YouTube has plenty of videos about electromagnetic sensitivity about which the WHO says: “EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure.” https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/radiation-and-health/non-ionizing/emf/hypersensitivity https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-hea... And more stupidity: “Eating these foods kills cancer” https://youtu.be/WGbFnp56csg?si=t54Pcr3uqjrXRx9f https://youtu.be/WGbFnp56csg?si=t54Pcr3uqjrXRx9f “12 foods that can fight and cure cancer” https://youtu.be/FdlKCpEzSAE?si=J6rtKs6valWnamBP https://youtu.be/FdlKCpEzSAE?si=J6rtKs6valWnamBP Interview with Robert DeNiro 8 years about his concerns about vaccines and autism and his doubts about the vaccine effectiveness statistics. https://youtu.be/FJ7iPn39i08?si=mRYD3a3y9HdMPMQ8 https://youtu.be/FJ7iPn39i08?si=mRYD3a3y9HdMPMQ8 Covid censorship was political and not from some altruistic “goodness.” And YouTube experienced very significant growth during the pandemic. So that “lovely” soul was profiting because of the lockdowns. Lockdowns that were possible due to fear and a lack of any permissible public debate — partially thanks to YouTube. Would lockdowns have ended sooner if there was more debate on the topic allowed? Definitely. What about school closures? Absolutely. But videos debating these things weren’t allowed. So no, the game and the player in this case are one and the same. I’m not going to respect anyone that supported lockdowns or supported suppressing scientific debate. Curating opinion (and facts) while pretending to not to isn’t worthy of respect. And, YouTube still allows those addictive kid videos where the narrator says “If you love your parents, like and subscribe. If you don’t love your parents, don’t like and subscribe.”
nailer 2y ago
The people in this thread and elsewhere online are generally arguing that she was not a lovely soul.

by asah 2y ago

In particular, Susan was a lovely soul and specifically deserves all of our respect. If you want to hate, then hate the game, not the player (especially in this case).

somenameforme 2y ago

This saying never made sense to me as a game is only a game if there are players.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
The point of the saying is that the player is not necessarily in position to change the rules, or at least not in the immediate short term. How far one wants to accept this as acceptable reasoning is a subjective matter.
- sleeplessworld 2y ago
  Or maybe not that subjective when looked at closer. It may just as well be a saying that the entitled classes use to defend their selfish and less than good behaviour. Beacause the classes of the not-entitled buy this as somehow having reasonable meaning. The entitled classes have no reason to change rules that are clearly stacked in their favour. But it sounds way better to say the rules cannot be changed. But it is hard to see why this should be self-evidently true.
- wruza 2y ago
  You can offset basically anything with it. It's another way to say "it's just a collection of atoms working by the laws of nature". Most of these proverbs are just selling bs.
matwood 2y ago
A good example is taxes. Many people think the 'rich', including the rich, should pay more. Every tax form in the US has a spot where you are free to write in a larger amount to send, but I wonder how many actually do? Unless the game ends collectively, it doesn't make sense to stop playing. I will continue to pay as little taxes as possible until the game is changed.

vintermann 2y ago

I'm sure she was, but I did not personally know her and I'm pretty sure few others here did as well. It's newsworthy for what she was, her role, not really for who she was as a person. I certainly wouldn't mind reading some personal eulogies about what a great mentor her was etc., or about how she influenced your life with her work even if you didn't know her. But I also don't mind reading critical posts about the role she played, I think that's part of the picture for someone who's famous as a business leader. If people weren't willing to speak freely about the dead, we wouldn't have had the Nobel prizes.

briandear 2y ago

She censored things because of politics. That’s not “lovely.” YouTube has videos on the dangers of GMO crops, despite the scientific consensus for their safety and utility. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959534/#cit0001 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959534/#cit000... YouTube has plenty of videos about electromagnetic sensitivity about which the WHO says: “EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure.” https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/radiation-and-health/non-ionizing/emf/hypersensitivity https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-hea... And more stupidity: “Eating these foods kills cancer” https://youtu.be/WGbFnp56csg?si=t54Pcr3uqjrXRx9f https://youtu.be/WGbFnp56csg?si=t54Pcr3uqjrXRx9f “12 foods that can fight and cure cancer” https://youtu.be/FdlKCpEzSAE?si=J6rtKs6valWnamBP https://youtu.be/FdlKCpEzSAE?si=J6rtKs6valWnamBP Interview with Robert DeNiro 8 years about his concerns about vaccines and autism and his doubts about the vaccine effectiveness statistics. https://youtu.be/FJ7iPn39i08?si=mRYD3a3y9HdMPMQ8 https://youtu.be/FJ7iPn39i08?si=mRYD3a3y9HdMPMQ8 Covid censorship was political and not from some altruistic “goodness.” And YouTube experienced very significant growth during the pandemic. So that “lovely” soul was profiting because of the lockdowns. Lockdowns that were possible due to fear and a lack of any permissible public debate — partially thanks to YouTube. Would lockdowns have ended sooner if there was more debate on the topic allowed? Definitely. What about school closures? Absolutely. But videos debating these things weren’t allowed. So no, the game and the player in this case are one and the same. I’m not going to respect anyone that supported lockdowns or supported suppressing scientific debate. Curating opinion (and facts) while pretending to not to isn’t worthy of respect. And, YouTube still allows those addictive kid videos where the narrator says “If you love your parents, like and subscribe. If you don’t love your parents, don’t like and subscribe.”

nailer 2y ago

The people in this thread and elsewhere online are generally arguing that she was not a lovely soul.