AlexanderTheDead @ AlexanderTheDead @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

180

Joined

11 mo. ago

Okay, so what I'm saying is that the definition I'm reading cites "injustice" and "cruelty" as prerequisites.

"prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control" (oxford)

"the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control" (oxford)

"mental pressure or distress" (oxford- but this is the third definition and seems like a much more general word that isn't really useful in these conversations when trying to define systems)

"unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power" (merriam-webster)

Merriam-webster then also has 2 more definitions similar to the oxford counterparts.

"a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom" (Cambridge)

I stopped looking after that, but I think that's fair, no? So then if we DO agree about these definitions, do you really consider it cruel or unjust towards the hoarders of capital?

But, and maybe this is a semantics argument then, I don't think we are in agreement by what oppression means. I'm just using the google definition. Are you using a different definition that makes more sense in the context of theory/academic circles? I am a layman, after all

I guess I understand that, but separately I take issue with the use of the word oppression? The bourgeoisie cannot be oppressed, really. If they were ever in a position to be oppressed, they would no longer be considered bourgeoisie. No? But yeah the rest of what you're saying makes sense.

Take a picture and show us what cones you bought so we can make fun of you more. If you refuse, you'll get made fun of anyway because we will all assume you realized you were in the wrong.

NOT A DEFENSE OF ISRAEL

They won't violate shit. There is no ceasefire lmfao.

How is the proletariat oppressing a non existent class? Under socialism, wouldn't everyone be considered proletariat?

Well, equality is sometimes referred to in the vain of "everyone is equal" rather than "everyone is treated equal". I think that might be what it's saying. When the social idea of equality first emerged, I cannot imagine even for a second that they were like "yeah, everyone should be given exactly the same things regardless of their personal situation", because nobody striving for an idea LIKE equality would come to that resolution. Like, equity is just what equality should have been in the first place.

Reminder that we are talking about teenagers being groomed and targeted by adult military recruiters.

Reminder that we are talking about teenagers that are almost completely politically unaware because they can't vote yet and have no reason to know what's going on.

Reminder that we are talking about teenagers who can't vote, can't smoke, can't drink, at 16 maybe can't drive yet, but are old enough to be recruited by adults who are introduced to them as trusted government officials, usually through our own education system.

No one said otherwise.

The original commenter said they hadn't seen anyone fuck up this bad since Bush. The responder is simply implying that they think the covid response was an equally bad fuck up.

Caught my 7yo niece consuming disney princess cosplay ahegao content on youtube shorts yesterday. =\ she's not allowed on YouTube anymore, the platform is too unsafe for children.

Interesting.

Anyway, skill diff! See ya!

The potential coverings would have to be exactly the shape of the dress because of the sleeves, no? We would see the shade passing underneath? Like onto the obvious clothing rack underneath the left sleeve?

for sure bro, you're really trolling me 😎

My arguments haven't even touched on those areas 😭 can you stop being annoying? I'm not gonna fall for your troll bait, so if you keep being annoying, I'll just block you lmao.

Which goalpost did I move?

Maybe I'm just an elevated being but I can clearly tell that the righthand side is a mirror on a wall and that the tan below it is where the floor meets the wall. Because of that, I can roughly make out the angle and know that we should be seeing some shade on the side if any existed in the first place.

Does that make sense?

Debate vs discussion semantics.

Debate regards the color.

Discussion regards the overall cultural effect, studies in neuroscience, etc

So the idea is that the dress is, what, covered in an exactly dress shaped and sized amount of shade? Or else why wouldn't we see shade anywhere else?

The fact that the real color wasn't widespread knowledge from the get go. 🥱🥱

💀