Aceticon @ Aceticon @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

2,627

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well, cats as a bit more on the slicey and dicey than on the grindey side of breaking up things.

(One shudders to think on what cats would do if they could actually use knifes)

The self-proclaimed anti-racists were never against racism, they just had different lists of ubermenschen and untermenschen that the traditional racists.

If one is running around with the idea that people's worth is defined by their ethnicity and that one can presume they're oppressors or oppressed based on that alone they're still a racist and still operating on the same fundamental prejudices about the worth of people as the Nazis.

Because of how the Zionists in Israel worked so much and so successfully to entrenched the idea that Israel represents all Jews, an ethnic group which the new-age-racists collectively deemed "victims" and "good people" (remember, the racism is classifying people on their race, not being positive or negative in your classification: after all, the Nazis too deemed all Arians as better than the rest) what the Israeli Genocide did was put in focus the racism of the Racists passing themselves as anti-Racists when those who they believe represent one of the "good races" started openly doing the very same kind of ultra violent racism as the Nazis.

People who genuinely were against racism reviewed this stance whilst those who still operate on the same racist principles as the Nazis - that people's worth is defined by their ethnicity - came up with all sorts of excuses in defense of "the good race", very much like Nazi supporters defended the Arian race because it was a white race like theirs.

Basically Liberals made it plain as day they're just another kind of Fascist who support all other kinds of Fascism unless they themselves are its target.

Just like somebody giving weapons and ammo to the Ku Klux Klan whilst they're actively using them to kill afro-americans is a fucking extreme racist KKK supporter, so is anybody giving weapons and ammo to a white ethno-Fascist state actively genociding people of another ethnicity because of their ethnicity is a fucking extreme racist ethno-Fascist (the same variant of Fascism as Nazism) supporter.

Unless you're a fucking racist yourself who judges actions differently depending on the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators, those two are equivalent.

So any self-proclaimed anti-Racist liberal supporting Israel with actual weapons and ammo is not only by their own actions the worst, most raciste violent and genocidal kind of Fascist there is - one similar to Nazism, no less - they're also a massive hypocrite.

So yeah, based on the leaders they vote for Americans are by association the modern Nazi supporters.

Any process unless specifically adjusted to compensate for it (and the adjustment itself is a distortion of it and has secondary effects) will be affected by the environment it is working in.

So specifically for Capitalism and the practice of Science under it, funding and the societal pressure on everybody including scientists to have more money - as wealth is a status symbol in that environment - are he main pathways via which Capitalism influences the practice of Science.

It's incredibly Reductionist and even anti-Scientific to start from the axiom that environment does not at all influence the way Science is practiced (hence Capitalism is unrelated to Science) and then just make an entire argument on top of such a deeply flawed assumption

You had a cardboard box?!

Luxury!

When I was young ...

You're supposed to use baby talk with them from about 15 years old and until they're 18, to really piss them off.

I was too tired to go beyond "1nm = 10^-9 hence 1 billion" and actually do the maths ;)

Before transistors there were vacuum tubes which did the same thing but using very different principles (and were also way bigger, even than traditional transistors and billions of times more than the transistors in the most modern ICs)

Before electric milling or even steam milling, flour used to be milled using watermills and windmills which, IMHO, are way cooler.

"It's OK, they always add extra screws"

Depends on the size of the screw.

My bet is Tunnel Effect from Quantum Mechanics since it also shares the properties of the likelihood of it happenning being inverselly correlated with size and just making things cross some kind of high energy barrier without the need for the energy to actually go into it.

Having run out of convicts, Russia had to turn to the inferior option of using North Koreans for its cannon fodder needs.

Any unbiased "what if candidates had done things differently" evaluation must include the actions of all candidates that resulted in a Democrat loss. This means it should include how much Clinton herself screw her own chances, for example by comparing the votes she got on those states with the votes previous Democrat candidates got in those states.

(I strongly suspect that Clinton has a far larger proportion of the blame for her own defeat than all 3rd party candidates put together)

This focus on blaming everybody else but your own leaders is just the traditional tribalist mindset of "the chief is good, it's everybody else whose a problem". The decades long enshittification of the Democrat Party is mainly the product of its supporters acting as mindless tribalists rather the rationally, thus not holding their "chiefs" to same standards as they do everybody else.

Unsurprisingly we see the very same problem of the Democrat Leadership having carte blanche from the party fans to do just about everything and even damage their own electoral chances - with, as we see right here, the members of the tribe eagerly scapegoating it all as being the fault of 3rd party candidates - with their support for the Israeli Genocide.

White vans, no less.

I've done this almost from the very beginning (back in the 90s) and always had very small mobile communications costs because I could easilly change providers and plans and even do things like use a local SIM card whilst abroad to avoid roaming costs.

The style of architecture (notice the roof shingles, chimney shape, the dark red brick low wall between the street and the pump court and the iron fence in the middle of the road that goes by the pump - the photo was taken from the other side of the road), the kind of cars there, the weather and even the guy working with a reflective vest (all the way to the right of the picture) all suggest UK.

In fact even without the title the whole thing looks very UK (as opposed to other places in Europe, though I wouldn't be as sure).

I lived in Britain and this picture immediatelly said "familiar" and "UK" as soon as I saw it. What's funny is that to write this post I had to try and understand what elements made it so familiar.

I saw the whole Brexit thing first hand and I also saw how EU Membership was sold in my home country of Portugal which was way poorer, and the arguments were anchored on completelly different things.

The whole argumentation in Britain was anchored on quite massive Delusions of Grandeur (i.e. "Britains and Britons are better than the rest") amongst most of the population (even Remainers used the argument that "we can better change the EU from the inside", a viewpoint anchored on the idea that Britons knew better that everybody else) whilst in Portugal it was almost the opposite since one of the attractions of EU Membership was bringing better laws to Portugal from Europe (back in the 80s there was this whole idea that everything from richer nations abroad was better, which in this specific subject turned out to be mainly true).

Also on the Economic side of the argumentation, in Britain which is a much wealthier country the argument that "we lose money because of the EU" (which, by the way, was total bollocks) was easy to believe, whilst in Portugal it would be a crazy hard sell since the country is much poorer and the only natural resource it has is the sun, which is hardly something that could be claimed that the EU wanted to steal ;)

Then there's also the whole "big" (relative to the rest) country and "small" country side of the argumentation - being part of a big group is a massive protection for small countries in a World were medium side and bigger countries will invariably bully smaller ones, not always in peaceful ways (just look at what Russia, China and the US do, the latter sometimes via proxys as is doing at the moment via Israel).

So I strongly suspect that in Moldova the arguments were similar to those in Portugal and not at all like those in Britain.

If there's one thing I learned from observing Brexit first hand as an EU immigrant in Britain, is that the vast majority of people don't really care about the EU unless they are or see a way to directly benefit from it (as I benefited from Freedom Of Movement) and even when they do care they don't understand how most of the mechanisms which are the point of the EU affect their lives (hence Brexiters only saw immigration and not how an island with no natural resources and a Service-centric Economy can't just default to WTO rules for exporting Services because WTO Treaties don't cover those, whilst even Remainers couldn't see the whole "together we're stronger" side and kept claiming that Britain could "better change the EU from the inside", which is not a teamplayer position).

So EU membership ends up being sold to the public on pretty generic promises of improvement of their own lives and on single sides the EU's many-sided nature, a message which is far easier to distort and even use in reverse by anti-EU actors.

How else would the twisted sense of humour character trait be passed to the next generation?

I had a family member that invariably turned violent when drunk (but only towards his wife) but wasn't at all like that when sober.

I've also been drunk and several levels and around people at various level of drunkness, have done so in various countries and retain just as well in memory what happens when I am drunk (even at the "end up in hospital from alcohol intoxication" extreme) as when I'm not, though because I also remember well how it felt, I feel no regret for the crazy shit I did when drunk.

From my own observation it's not normal for most people to seek violent thrills when drunk, though I've seen it happen more in certain countries than others, so it might be a cultural thing. Also those who do turn violent when drunk are roughly split into three groups: those who go for violence against equally minded people for the fun of it (which are probably the ones you're thinking of), those who have pent up aggression and when drunk dump it on some hapless victim (which seems to be this lady) and those acting some power fantasies (i.e. when drunk in a group were they feel safe from reprisals they turn violent but alone they don't).

Personally I'm fine with the first kind (who am I to judge what consenting adults do to each other, including violence), but the other two are just bullies who normally are too afraid or self-repressed to act on their true nature.

Nah, it's pretty normal.

You see it a lot with people who are generally seen as "nice people" when not drunk and then turn into very violent people when the are drunk (a member of my family was like that).

A lot of people run around with pretty nasty issues that they do not act on because of social inhibitions and/or awareness of the social consequences of acting on those, and alcohol lowers those inhibitions and the "think twice before you open your mouth" that makes people take those secondary implications they're aware of into account - alcohol just takes away the internal overseer that was stopping them to be who they really are.

This is not excusing their actions: when not drunk those people are NOT nice inside, they just act nicer than they are because they know the consequences of doing otherwise and don't want to feel social shame, or in other words their being "nice" is just a mask and they'll probably act on those not nice things in their minds if they feel they can get away with it (IMHO, this is why some people who are nice, meek and even submissiness when powerless, turn very nasty when they find themselves in a position of power).