Nevoic @ Nevoic @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

138

Joined

2 yr. ago

Knowledge isn't bad, and I'm aware of where I'm knowledgeable and where my limits are. I tend to be quite a bit more knowledgeable about philosophy than the average person, most people don't introspect or read about where truth comes from. They often don't even know or understand what an axiom is, even though they're foundational to how we live.

If that's all too much for you, you can literally just disregard my latter two paragraphs before you went into your defensive panic. I don't (usually) need to get into the idea of normative truths to justify veganism, because ironically we live in a country of "animal lovers", many of whom would happily literally kill dog abusers. I've unironically met non-vegans that advocate for the fucking death penalty for people who abuse dogs.

That amount of dissonance, to advocate for actual death for humans who abuse animals, while themselves literally paying for animal abuse, is sufficient to dismantle people's entire preconception of animal rights and worth. If we happened to live in a society without massive hypocrites, where people consistently held that abusing and torturing all "lesser" animals was okay, I'd have to get into more nuanced discussion about the nature of truth to help people get to veganism.

I understand this response, it must be emotionally hard to be challenged in such a concrete and decisive way, with no rational response available to you. I see this most commonly from carnists and religious people. In politics people don't tend to literally fall into "LALALALA" and plugging their ears like you have, but certain social conditioning (namely church and other forms of normalized structural violence) cause people to go into a defensive panic.

Good luck on learning anything in your life, honestly.

Dark humor is a real thing, and it's fine and even cathartic for a lot of people. Joking about fascists, genocide-enablers, etc. is something some people find in poor taste, while others find it cathartic. Neither is wrong.

I didn't force anyone to follow anything, but the state does and you view that as a good thing. It should be illegal to abuse and kill dogs & cats, we can agree on that obvious truth. Your inability to see how that translates to pigs/cows/chickens is just irrationality/stupidity, nothing else.

I've had a ton of conversations on the nature of normative truths. Rehashing it over and over again with pseudo-expressivists online is annoying, mostly because you all have actually no background in philosophy, so it's like talking to a bunch of philosophy 101 students who have never given this more than a cursory thought.

You should look into the basis of knowledge, study a bit of epistemology. You'll find the foundations for all truths, normative or descriptive, are quite similar. They're all fundamentally based in axioms.

Sometimes it's just venting, looking at vegancirclejerk groups/forums. Not every comment from a vegan about veganism is an attempt at activism, sometimes we're just fed up with carnist bullshit and vent. If a carnist sees it and it makes them think, cool, but that's not always the goal.

I've never understood why vegans, the ones the vast majority agree are doing something at least good (even if you don't understand it's a moral obligation), are the ones that have to cater to the genocidal masses.

Stop and think for a second, imagine you live in a wild, wild world where the vegan position is actually correct. Imagine that you're a vegan, and those around you are actually supporting an unjustified animal holocaust. Then think about how your critique of vegans comes off. It's the genocidal maniacs complaining about how they're treated unfairly on the internet because sometimes someone attacks their delicate sensibilities.

It's not my responsibility to engage with you in such a way that makes you a better person. Your own failings are your own, and my failings are my own. My failings are I sometimes make someone on the internet a bit sad, and yours are participating in a market demanding tens of billions of animal deaths every year, a quantitative level of suffering we've never seen before.

Do they keep the male chicks? This is pretty rare, the vast majority of "local" egg farmers either macerate baby males alive or sell them to someone else to raise for a few months before slaughtering.

Agreed on everything, like I said in my first comment. I was fairly confident we were on the same page on everything, less cars is good, less human drivers is good, etc. I hate Musk, you hate Musk, etc.

Also I appreciate the humility, it's something very few people have, and what you've done here is what I hope I'm also able to do when needed.

I'm fully in favor of the USSR/European/Chinese/Japanese/etc. model for public transit (prefer public transportation over cars as much as possible). It vastly outperforms the U.S in every important metric (safety, reliability, cost, etc.)

Also agree that self-driving is a small piece of the overall picture. It's just I think that's the only piece Tesla really has a part in playing, most of the improvements need to happen on the government's end.

you don't want human drivers, I don't want cars

I'm the one misinterpreting you, yet when I explicitly advocate for public infrastructure to lessen the amount of cars, I'm somehow in favor of cars? You're definitely projecting.

not sure how you would have thought I was advocating for privatized public transit

Go back and read your comment. You never said the word public, I did. We were in a conversation about Tesla and its failings, and you randomly brought up "transit". So either you were making a completely off-topic point about something the government should do, or you were making an on-topic point about something Tesla should do. I read it as an on-topic comment.

the proverbial carrot of "fewer road accidents" is likely to prevent regulators from taking effective steps

Actually stop for a moment, take off your argument hat, and think about what you're advocating for. The government has had 100 years of non-self driving cars to implement the changes you've wanted. They've failed, miserably. They've actually taken a ton of steps to do exactly the opposite, and have built the largest car-centric society the world has ever seen.

Now that we have something that is statistically reducing the number of accidents on the road (autonomous vehicles, which will only get better, but already statistically outperform humans), you want private companies to revert these safety features in the hopes that the uptick in human deaths will lead to regulation that the U.S hasn't implemented in the 100 years of sole human driving?

Please tell me you're just miscommunicating your position again, and that you're actually not against the development of safety features to reduce human deaths in cars just to encourage the government to do something it hasn't done in the past 100 years.

You want Tesla to create transit infrastructure? I hard disagree, that should be something the government does, not a private company. Tesla should stay in the business of making cars, and the government should move to make that obsolete in cities with good public infrastructure.

Self-driving has pushed probably 0 people in the world from using public infrastructure to using cars. I've never met anyone that has said "yeah, I was using trains daily, but I decided to buy a $50,000 car with a $12,000 software upgrade to have it autonomously drive me". You honestly think there's a person that exists that has done this?

Leads to unsafe situations

Absolutely, it's just human drivers lead to unsafe situations more often. I understand it might not feel that way, but it's the actual truth, we have massive amounts of data on this, and your feelings don't outweigh that.

Agreed on everything, just want to make sure it's clear he's endangering people's lives by artificially restricting access to FSD. Supervised automated driving (that is, the car drives often drives itself point to point with no interventions) is statistically safer than the national average.

The fact that access to this is behind a $12,000 paywall (outside of the currently running free trial) is limiting access to a software safety feature. This should be illegal.

Yeah, there are some leftists that try drawing the line at silly points like "oh I won't vote for someone who supports genocide" but really what's the big deal? Genocides happen, I think they're kind of fun sounding. I'm thinking about moving to Israel and helping the IDF finish their extermination of the barbaric "human animals"/natives that have infested their holy land. Biden has self-identified as a Zionist many times before, and I think that's a beautiful thing. I bet he'd take up arms with me against the parasites if he was still fully sentient. He's definitely trying his best as president to help them finish cleaning up the trash.

Oh, and yeah only Trump is a fascist. None of the above sounds anything like fascism, don't worry.

/s

Nobody is exactly aware of what will result from their actions, I think the absolute best-case scenario for Palestine as a result of this post-October 7th escalation is that American youth gain a vastly increased awareness of the horrors of the Palestinian genocide.

This seems to actually have happened. American congress people are super worried about the anti-Israel sentiment rising in youth, and this is a major factor, if not the sole factor, driving the tiktok ban/forced sale attempts.

If anti-Israel sentiment stays strong for say 1-2 more decades while boomers continue to die off, America could very easily turn anti-Israel, and vote in line with Palestine and the rest of the world on widely agreed upon 2 state solutions.

Depends on what you're looking for. I had a high paying tech job (layoffs op), and I wanted a fun car that accelerates fast but also is a good daily driver. I was in the ~60k price range, so I was looking at things like the Corvette Stingray, but there are too many compromises for that car in terms of daily driving.

The Model 3 accelerates faster 0-30, and the same speed 0-60. Off the line it feels way snappier and responsive because it's electric, and the battery makes its center of gravity lower, so it's remarkably good at cornering for a sedan, being more comparable to a sports car in terms of cornering capabilities than a sedan.

Those aren't normally considerations for people trying to find a good value commuter car, so you would literally just ignore all those advantages. Yet people don't criticize Corvette owners for not choosing a Hyundai lol

On the daily driving front, Tesla wins out massively over other high performance cars in that price range. Being able to charge up at home, never going to a gas station, best in class driving automation/assistance software, simple interior with good control panel software, one pedal driving with regen breaking.

If you're in the 40k price range for a daily commuter, your criteria will be totally different, and I am not well versed enough in the normal considerations of that price tier and category to speak confidently to what's the best value. Tesla does however, at the very least, have a niche in the high performance sedan market.

Like sure fuck Elon, but why do you think FSD is unsafe? They publish the accident rate, it's lower than the national average.

There are times where it will fuck up, I've experienced this. However there are times where it sees something I physically can't because of either blindspots or pillars in the car.

Having the car drive and you intervene is statistically safer than the national average. You could argue the inverse is better (you drive and the car intervenes), but I'd argue that system would be far worse, as you'd be relinquishing final say to the computer and we don't have a legal system setup for that, regardless of how good the software is (e.g you're still responsible as the driver).

You can call it a marketing term, but in reality it can and does successfully drive point to point with no interventions normally. The places it does fuckup are consistent fuckups (e.g bad road markings that convey the wrong thing, and you only know because you've been on that road thousands of times). It's not human, but it's far more consistent than a human, in both the ways it succeeds and fails. If you learn these patterns you can spend more time paying attention to what other drivers are doing and novel things that might be dangerous (people, animals, etc ) and less time on trivial things like mechanically staying inside of two lines or adjusting your speed. Looking in your blindspot or to the side isn't nearly as dangerous for example, so you can get more information.

Socialists use work and labor to describe different things. Work is the set of actions a worker is coerced to participate in by capitalists to align with the interests of capital. Labor can be something you engage in as part of work, but that's not always the case. Sometimes people have jobs that are so inefficient or bullshit that they literally don't labor at all at work (read Bullshit Jobs).

Labor is necessary (currently), work is not. Aligning with the interests of capital is not synonymous with the interests of humanity (think ad work, literally encouraging greater consumption, especially around harmful products like tobacco/alcohol/sugar. Most western countries now have bans on tobacco advertising, but still let advertising in general flourish).

On the topic of feeding everyone, it would be very logistically difficult in the 1600s no doubt. Now we have a massive international trade system, I can easily get massive amounts of goods shipped from the other side of the world in weeks or maybe months at the worst. We also produce enough food currently to feed 12 billion people, and that's with our incredibly inefficient system of converting edible plant matter (mostly soy) to animals.

The issue is, under capitalism, poor people don't deserve to eat. If they lack money, they're better off dead than alive and consuming resources without paying for them, so that's what the global international capitalist system does, it moves more than enough food great enough distances to feed everyone as it is. It just moves it to the rich countries where obesity has been a massive issue instead of the global south, because people in rich countries have the money to pay for food, and so they deserve to live (and overeat/waste food) but people born in Africa deserve death.

Capitalists often lose sight of what an economy is for. An economy isn't something of value in and of itself, it's about setting up incentives and systems to benefit humanity. Capitalism fails to do this in everyway that is uniquely capitalist. Anything it does right is attributed to the general functioning of markets, which existed before capitalism and can exist after capitalism (market socialism is a real thing). There are problems with markets no doubt, but capitalism really has no redeeming qualities when compared to market socialism. If you compare it to feudalism, it does do better at mobilizing productive forces, of course at the massive detriment to workers.

Yes but in different ways depending on the country. The U.S has a pretty clear analogue, the Native American genocide.

The main difference between Israel/Palestine and the U.S/Native Americans is the former is happening currently, the U.S has already successfully completed the genocide on their natives, while Israel is in the middle of its extermination.

Germany also clearly has the Jewish Holocaust, but they weren't successful in WW2, so that genocide didn't get white-washed and instead was shamed to paint a clear good guy/bad guy narrative, despite the Nazis open praise of the U.S for our successful extermination of the natives, U.S business interests aligning with Nazis before and during the war, and the U.S trying to stay neutral between the Allies and Axis powers until Japan forced the U.S into action.

This is the natural order, yet paraplegics live, why? Because we live in a society that attempts to circumvent the natural order in many ways, for the good of all.

You should take a broader materialistic look on society, who does the work (the working class), who benefits from the work (the owner class), and instead of focusing on amping up people to devote their lives to serve the interests of capital, instead focus to reframe the goals of society to serve the interests of workers, which includes working less, or even not at all. Work is not labor.

You missed the forest for the trees. He failed to get this passed. It's absolutely fluff to reach to Biden's failures in a list of his greatest accomplishments.

Obviously I agree on decriminalizing marijuana, but that's not what my comment or the broader discussion was about.

I don't know if you genuinely missed the point of my comment, or if you're just arguing in bad faith.

If your goal is to reinforce the pro-Biden crowd, good job. If your goal is to convince anyone who is anti-Biden, this won't do.

Fluff has opposite effects for people with different biases. Someone with a bias in favor of what you're saying reads all the fluff as "yup this is a metric fuckload of facts that weighs in favor of my heuristical understanding of the world", while others would read it as "this person is obviously reaching and fluffing up the pro-Biden rhetoric, so is any of it impressive?"

I'll be more concrete in my criticism, you mention both the climate action (materially important and good to mention) and also his failed attempt to pass marijuana legislation. Even bringing up marijuana legislation when the kinds of discussions we're having are about genocide, climate change, employment, etc. seems out of place, but you bring up a failed attempt to do this comparatively extremely unimportant thing, it reads as you having an immense bias and reaching for anything you can. Same thing with his failure to get proper student loan relief to people.

Essentially the only actual legitimate win he has is the passing of the climate action. Wage growth and unemployment shrinking are parts of natural boom bust cycles, not any executive orders he's put in place or action signed into law by Democrats.

For what it's worth I'm not a moderate, I'm a socialist, so I'm not normally the "truth is in the middle of two positions" type of person, but your comment is the exception to the rule, where you're not spewing out just straight falsehoods but you do have an obvious bias and are fluffing up his achievements more than deserved.