There's a piece from stanford and harvard business review (of all places). I couldn't find the original studies on academia.edu after a couple minutes of searching but maybe you'll have better luck. I think there's a behind the bastards podcast episode about it too.
Squirrels are just the best. If anyone goes to visit Taiwan - which I certainly recommend as strongly as possible - there's a park in the capital Taipei called 2/28 Memorial Peace Park (二二八和平紀念公園).
There are these gorgeous squirrels with red bellies that will eat nuts right out of your hand. They'll come up to you, take a nut and then run off about midway up a tree. Using their back legs to hold onto the bark, they dangle head-down against the trunk, eating with their front paws. Then you look around and all the trees have these vertical furry tree-slug looking squirrels dangling against them. Just cuting it up cutefully.
Red-bellied plumpers is what my wife and I called them. They're just the best.
Ireland is known for having the most support for the Palestinian cause in all of Europe for exactly the reason you imply - they know what it's like to suffer under violent colonial rule.
Irish support for Palestine is well known enough that there was a sporting furor last year when an Israeli team said in a pregame interview "we expect a tough match because everyone knows the Irish are all antisemitic", conflating support for Palestine with antisemitism.
I personally believe that preserving a false and misleading picture of reality designed to trumpet a deranged cult that is working to make the world objectively worse for everyone including themselves is not acceptable.
I would say, "Look mum I love you more than anything in the world but preserving some of these movies crosses an ethical line for me."
Of course I grew up in a house of atheist jewish academics, so making and justifying personal ethical stances that contravene wider group stances is expected behavior in my family. And we take document preservation fairly seriously.
Being an asshole is a consequence of being rich. Having social power in the form of wealth, status or fame causes neurological changes that reduce your brain's capacity for empathy, giving you a brain that looks more like someone born with psychopathy. Power corrupts on a brain-chemistry level.
Why are you getting down voted?
I don't see any downvotes, but i'd guess it's because people presume bad faith on the internet - not without some reason - and are interpretting my comment as a rude attack on the previous poster rather than an expansion of the same sentiment.
Edit: Well to be honest, not exactly the same sentiment - I think accusing only the 'baddies' of this 'we own the world' attitude requires forgetting or forgiving a lot of western history.
I agree with you pretty much everything you said, I just think that drawing a strong distinction between any one species and every other one mischaracterizes the situation. Evil is a human construct that applies as poorly to human behaviour as to the behaviour of every other animal, for the same reasons.
If you'll excuse me simplifying your point, "They're animals of course they do that, evil doesn't come into it" is not quite as accurate as "We're all animals, evil doesn't come into it", to my mind at least. Because OP didn't just misunderstand an aspect of non-human animals, they misunderstood an aspect of how life works.
We're animals. Like all social animals we have behavioral norms and individuals who violate them in circumstances that benefit them.
Many animals display empathy, both in their behavior and neurology. Many animals understand, remember and display reciprocity. Many animals mourn. Many animals show strong evidence of forming assessments of individuals from other species.
Our actions are determined by the sum total of our genetics, experience and social expectations, same as any other social animal.
Getting everything you want is a demand, not a negotiation, and implies bad faith.
I've not seen any reporting which details what the supposed differences are, how far apart they really are, or any substantive detail at all.
I doubt that both egypt and qatar would jeopardize their role as mediators by selling a vastly differing counter-proposal as an agreement, and the fact that bibi's office is talking about sending it to their team rather than strongly rejecting it makes this seem to me more like israeli positioning than reality, but we'll have to hold firm judgement until actual details come out.
This third-party brokered cease fire has been the cease fire that israel and the US have accused hamas of holding up because they want to paint hamas as the belligerents, now that hamas has agreed israel has to undermine the legitimacy of the deal otherwise they look like the belligerents.
If it turns out to have all been meaningless theatre (this is a developing story), it was israel and the US who set the stage and invited the audience.
Hegar @ Hegar @kbin.social Posts 2Comments 677Joined 2 yr. ago
You forgot: