4 ms·
Of course you deem the costs acceptable because you don't have to pay them. The word deplorable means: deserving condemnation and contempt. And frankly, I can't
by sophacles 2mo ago
Of course you deem the costs acceptable because you don't have to pay them. The word deplorable means: deserving condemnation and contempt. And frankly, I can't think of anything more deserving of contempt than a person willing to accept the harm to others for a slight increase in convenience.
> Yes, this sometimes puts a toll on the individual. We should support them when this happens via a social safety net. But we shouldn't try to halt progress instead. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
The social safety net is being actively dismantled by the same people building your toys. Reasonable approaches to some of these problems, like requiring solar arrays sufficient to power the datacenters (or more) or equivalent clean energy - are actively opposed by the people who are building the datacenters. Open and transparent local government is being shut down by NDAs and bribes from these datacenter builders in exchange for local tax subsidies.
You'd see a lot less opposition to these things if there was a reasonable assurance that the harm was "change for some people" rather than "reduction in quality of life and increased expenses for some people". I think very few people are fundamentally opposed to datacenters, they are opposed to the actions being taken right now in the real world to put them up and not compensate people for the damages they cause. If there was anyone putting up datacenters in a way that actually addressed people's concerns in a reasonable way, that didn't force the population to pay for some rich guy to get rich off toys for people who are OK putting the cost on others... well I would be fine with it. Unfortunately that's not the situation we currently have and I will continue to oppose this.
See I think the companies and sick fucks who support them should actually earn their income and compensate fairly for it, not just buy governments to force others to bear the costs while they get the benefits.
- otterley 2mo agoWe agree that clean energy and social safety sets are worth demanding and preserving. Externalities are a real problem and yes, they need to be compensated for. > And frankly, I can't think of anything more deserving of contempt than a person willing to accept the harm to others for a slight increase in convenience. Before you claim moral high ground here, you should take a good hard look at yourself and all the conveniences you enjoy and make sure you're absolutely consistent with this principle. I'll bet you'll find that you're not.
- sophacles 2mo agoWhat a weird statement. Just like you think if something isn't the worst it must be fine, and how if someone isn't destitute they couldn't have suffered financial harm, now you're trying to claim someone who isn't the perfect paragon of morality the must not be able to have a higher standard of virtue than someone actively advocating for the harm of others. It comes across as incredibly defensive.
- otterley 2mo agoThere are stories you're telling yourself (especially the unfounded and frankly insulting belief that I'm "actively advocating for the harm of others"). Perhaps you should seek clarification instead of jumping to conclusions. And check the ground beneath you before criticizing others. I told you multiple messages back that you're getting way too personal about this issue and need to back off. I'm done with this thread. Go attack someone else.