antris

I suggest reading on Manufacturing Consent.

People living in liberal democracies are swayed all the time. It has happened over and over again. Probably the most notable example being USA after 9/11. Bush approval rating spiked from 60% to 92%. When scary things happen, media coverage and politicians can together make drastic changes to public opinion.

There are wars and crises going on in the world all the time, and media's coverage of them or the lack thereof do change peoples minds on whether they matter or what should be done about them.

This is a very generous description of what happened.

There has been air of forced consensus in the "discussion" between media, politicians and people on social media. People have been branded as "putinist" or "playing into Putin's hand" for merely suggesting that the decision shouldn't be rushed, and that there needs to be thorough analysis before making a decision.

Media hasn't covered Nato's history as an aggressive force, or the war profiteering. The "risks of Nato membership" have been reduced to a framing of "what will Russia do during the application process", which implies that Finland is going to join Nato anyway.

There have been a few critical voices interviewed in the media, mainly Anna Kontula. The response to this has been between "I see your points, but I don't agree with your conclusions" to "you are playing into Putin's hands" to nitpicking and taking her statements out of context in order to get a "gotcha" on her. Not any real engagement or discussion on the arguments.

Whether you agree with Finland joining Nato or not, I think there are good arguments to be made on either side. But to say that there has been any real discussion is a stretch at best. This process was rushed.

The "React as a framework" thing came later, which I personally think is a misstep. I'm not into frameworks in general.

Agree with the first statement but, not necessarily on the second.

People dismissed React for being "too new" or "the latest stupid shiny new framework" for a long time because they didn't understand it. But when I read about it for the first time, I understood the problem it was solving with the VDOM. It made perfect sense for me to start using it immediately because it quickly starts saving a lot of time formerly spent on writing DOM setting/resetting code and making sure it never breaks. It was something I was already thinking about: "how could I avoid writing all this tedious DOM manipulation code". And there it was, and I knew it would become big. It took a while for the rest of the world realize it, but eventually it caught on.

Sometimes tools pop up that make perfect sense. So you shouldn't dismiss any technology for its age, whether it's old or new.

Now you are trying to bend this into the most uncharitable interpretation you can think of. In addition you're also just completely making up what I think. Sorry but I'm not gonna start defending your strawmans.

Also, by the same logic seatbelt laws would be "resorting to fascism" because it's forcing all people to use seatbelts. It's not fascism to have laws.

https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

People asking for the end of slavery are attacking cotton producers!

People asking for a 5 day work week are attacking the factory owner!

This argument is thrown around every time activists are demanding change and is as old as activism itself. It's not a thing that happens "these days" any more than it has happened before.

But at least activists are working towards increasing our freedoms, as opposed to the people who have even bigger egos, are addicted to having their egos stroked and are working towards reducing your freedoms and owning everything (Musk/Bezos/Zuckerberg etc.)

Just FYI there's sites that take in What refugees

In the US the most obvious mainstream example is republicans upholding white male supremacist laws. Of course they avoid direct language and use dog whistles instead, because saying out loud that you're a white male supremacist isn't a good look anymore. Of course the democrats do it too, but their dog whistles are more subtle and not as obvious.

White male supremacy is an ideology, not an identity. Anyone can be white male supremacist, regardless of gender or race. Also, you can definitely be a white male who's not a white male supremacist.

Also I'm not representing any "group". I'm just speaking for myself. Seems like you see this as some kind of team sports?

And if instead of just a throwaway two-word dig it would be a longer comment with big words and superficially logical-sounding lazy argumentation that has been debunked countless times, it would likely be upvoted.

Great example. Inventing, perfecting and making the invention practical to use gives you exactly $0. So the brilliance and genius gives you nothing.

However, the inventor can become rich through patents if they are given a slice of the sales when it's produced and sold by other people. In that case, the inventor would be exploiting the profit and value created by other people. But this is extremely rare, as most inventors work for a wage (their employer owning all the inventions they make) or sell their patents to a bigger company early on, which then milks profits out of it.

Inventor of insulin purposely gave away their patent for free. But then the patent system was gamed by a capitalist and now insulin is super expensive in some countries and someone else than the inventor is getting rich off of it.

Capitalism doesn't care who invented what or who's brilliant or not. It only cares about ownership and accumulation of wealth through profits.

You'll never become rich by working hard or smart. It's only possible through inheritance or extracting value created by others through profit.