So I’ve tried Mastodon, Pixelfed and didn’t like them. Mastodon is nice if you wanna ”tweet”, but that’s not for me. Pixelfed was dead.
I quit Meta because of tech bro fascism, and hated Twitter even before it was X because, let’s face it - nobody has ever changed their opinion on anything because of a Twitter conversation (I know I’m exaggerating, to get my point across). I was in Reddit for a few weeks, and the conversations there seem mostly friendly and constructive, but I decided I don’t want to have anything to do with social media corporations. Besides, I noticed I could scroll endlessly. And that’s not good for me.
Lemmy seems nice. There are still some topics I’m interested in that don’t have active communities, and I’m still learning on how to have my feed from multiple instances. But still, this is the way to go for me.
Against algorithms, against fascism, for free internet. Thanks for coming to my boring Ted talk and have a nice day.
Lemmy is just left wing politics in an echo chamber
Then why do we keep arguing with each other?
It's too bad you're being forced to be here.
I actually am hahahhaa.
Imagine being too far to the right for reddit and then thinking that you will be met with enthusiastic agreement on lemmy.
I guess you're getting downvoted by those offended. It absolutely is.
Note: I am left, communist in fact, but the way political topics are discussed is a clear doomer circlejerk. I'd love to at least see more variety over "Trump is stupid, Elon is mad, senators are bootlickers, death to Nazis, we're all gonna die". Like, yeah, we got it and we know it. What next? Any political action, maybe?
Believe it or not, but I also am a leftist. Social democrat.
I say a lot of bad stuff though. Like: old people that did not have kids, should have less pension and use the money they have been saving up by not having kids.
This is seen as insane, but.. old people are the wealthiest class in most societies.
Yes there are exceptions and these people need help. High minimum pension for sure. They need a decent life.
But why would I want someone who didn't even have a kid to replace themselves as productive entity to gain a fantastic passive income on top of their already passive income generating assets?
a compromise would be something as simple as: retired person above age 65 gets +amount of euros per working child in insert home country.
It would incentivise having kids.
The reaction I get usually is that it's inhumane, that people are seen as production houses only, that people don't wanna be born... A lot of doomer stuff to be honest.
It would be fun if there's a place where you can only deny an idea if you can replace it with your own solution to the issue. In this case "aging population" (popular issue in Belgium right now)
I fail to see advantages over the expansion of direct support for families with kids.
If such families would be adequately supported, parents wouldn't be so financially disadvantaged and this would automatically resolve the issue of assets as well.
Paying it as part of pensions on the condition of children working in the home country makes people's finances directly reliant on the actions of independent actors (their adult children) and punishes people who, for example, cannot have children in the first place due to medical reasons, lack of a partner, etc. It also doesn't bring financial support when it's needed the most.
And relying on asset accumulation and personal investments as a source of pension funding is quite odd to me to begin with, as salaries don't always reflect the good done for society (for example, public sector work is often paid more poorly, despite bringing maximum value for the state), and also because personal investments cannot be done with the same precision, competence and risk management as the funds do (and even if you invest in funds, they take a cut). I believe asset accumulation should be minimized in favor of public support nets (including decent pensions and good living conditions for everyone).