After years of this sentiment being passed around online it's clear that shit isn't going to happen until we have a military draft/Vietnam War level incident. The pot is boiling too slowly for most of us to jump out. And even if we do try to organize a strike or civil disobedience, the government has gotten good at assasinating leaders that threaten the system.

Clever meme lol

There are a lot of claims here, but I'm going to focus on one in particular. I don't think we have any moral obligation to reach our potential as a "creator race". Taking into account your initial starting point, consider the following argument:

1. Either intelligent beings were created or intelligent beings arose by chance (at least once).
2. If intelligent beings were created, then there is already a creator.
3. If intelligent beings arose by chance once, then it is possible for intelligent life to arise by chance again.
4. Therefore, either there is already a creator of intelligent life or intelligent life can arise by chance again.

If this argument is sound, then the possibility of intelligent life does not depend on us. To me, this weakens any suggestion that we are morally obligated to fulfill our intellectual potential.

Perhaps one could object to my argument above on utilitarian grounds. If we can create more intelligent life than already exists, then we will be increasing the total amount of good in the universe. We are morally obligated to increase the good in the world (however "good" is defined) and so we are morally obligated to create intelligent beings. But this is a non sequitur. It isn't clear that the creation of more intelligent beings will result in more happiness than misery. In which case, on a utilitarian analysis, it could turn out that we are morally prohibited from creating intelligent beings.

I know this isn't the crux of your post, but I wanted to engage philosophically since posts in this community often go unanswered.

Agreed, Facebook is terrible. But I'd say that Lemmy and Reddit are on a par (as regards users and mods). Perhaps Lemmy's major upside is the decentralized structure, but then you lose out on the niche content that Reddit offers.

Priorities lmao

It needs to be said. If we can't acknowledge how contradicting narratives were fed to us within the same month, then it shows an alarming lack of cognitive dissonance on our part.

There are people on Lemmy who argued that Biden is not our best bet against Trump; they were told that Biden was the best that the party can do and that there was not enough time to replace Biden. Now, we're all supposed to move on like that didn't just happen.

That said, I am pleasantly surprised to see the community admitting the mistake. I assumed this post would be downvoted heavily but the post felt necessary for the reasons above.

In contrast, people that are right on big, important issues I try to pay more attention to

Jon Stewart comes to mind

This is literally not a meme

I don't understand. If a mod from memes.world bans me from a meme community, I can still comment on memes.world from another instance? Or are you saying just go to another community on another instance that has the same kind of content? Because if it's the latter then Lemmy's userbase number problem comes into play. Even popular subjects only have like one or two big communities.

Kinda feels like the site isn't developing much at all tbh. I know mods have been asking for more tools for a while now