Saryn @ Saryn @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

76

Joined

11 mo. ago

Pity for you and your poor soul

You obviously didn't read or understand a thing I wrote. If you did, you wouldn't have simply doubledowned on the same fallacies and false assumptions.

But let's be real - this isn't about assessing what's true and what's not. Its about individual psychology and our desperate need for self-affirmation to build confidence. It's part of the reason why you'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over, regardless of evidence, regardless of substance, regardless of logic, ultimately abondoning any notion of intellectual honesty.

Once you adopt that whole mentality, you cannot be reasoned with on the rational level, which is why some compare it to a mild psychiatric disorder. And looking around what's been happening with communities around the world vis-a-vis the media they consume, it's easy to understand why. This usually occurs after about 5 to 10 years of consuming a certain type of content. I honestly hope you're not at that point. I always like giving people the benefit of the doubt. In this case, I basically kinda assume you're relatively young. Which is good, if that's the case.

Best of luck to you on your journey. Don't stop resisting the ego. Never stop resisting the ego. The most important fight is the one inside our head.

Edit: You're next message is going to completely ignore (and thus reject) any of what I said and probably contain quite a bit of ad hominem and doubling down.

There is nothing to be baffled by. You're just misrepresenting the argument.

It baffles me how you don't see the hypocrisy of both complaining about the US not joining WWII until they were directly attacked and also complaining about American hegemony today.

It's only baffling if you assume ab initio that the only possible kind of intervention is the imperialist, hegemonic one, and that that is the only way of describing the country's (or any other Allied country for that matter) entry into WW2. More generally, its only baffling if you assume that involvement naturally equates to "hegemony", and the behavior that implies, in the long-term. This viewpoint totally negates the normative side of the exercise of power which is why it has been all but abondoned by contemporary IR scholars, political scientists, sociologists, etc.

In short, you misrepresent (deliberately or otherwise) your opponent's argument by assuming that all exercise of power is "hegemonic", an assertion that is not grounded in reality. At this point, you should also be able to see the moral issues with some of what you said and the overall image you presented of the human condition. Classical geopolitical thinking is simply not valid and tends to reproduce highly unstable and dangerous systems by ignorant human who reify it into reality.

Can you articulate why, with what they knew in 1939, the US should have declared war

Sure (and you too should be able to - its real simple). It starts with an f and ends with a ascism. Though I'll give you that policy analysts at the USDOS at the time didn't see it in those terms. I'm also willing to bet they knew a lot more than you think you know but do let me know if you think I'm wrong.

That articulate enough for you?

Can confirm - switching my approach to changing my conditioning rather than directly trying to change my behaviors through sheer will, I've actually managed to make some progress for the first time in what feels like years. Take it slow, step by step - you don't have to change everything about your environemnt all at once - it might even be counterproductive. And in a few months you start to notice an accumulation of changes in your behavior.

I also kinda feel this corraborates my suspicion that conciousness is not as conciouss as we like to give it (ourselves, really) credit.

Brought to you by a president who f****d a pornstar and paid her off by falsifying business records.

Clown world for a clown species.

Thank you - I have acquired new knowledge.

Yes, US companies have a lot of IP conflicts with China and we do tend to hear about them through media. But that paints a skewed picture of what's actually happening.

If you were to research it more carefully, you would find out that the vast majority of these claims (>90%) are not pursued by US companies. As a deliberate, strategic decision. They don't want to.

Ask yourself why.

Don't believe me? Google is your friend.

You would be correct if that is how the copyright and trademark system actually worked.

But they don't. They favour the big guy, not the little guy. Crazy, I know. Wait until you find out how modern taxation systems work.

This is insane - Pokemon cannot trademark having mounts in games. Screw Niantic, the Pokemon company and especially Nintendo which basically controls the first two. Screw them

Do not support these companies.

Sincerely, A life long Pokemon fan

Was it so difficult to google the hosting states instead of amplifying random BS? ......

I've been to over 50 countries in all seven continents, and I've lived in four of those. Never did I feel anything that I would would describe as fear.

I will be travelling to the US for an exchange program next month. I am afraid. To the point I am actually considering cancelling what could be a career changing opportunity.

Is this true?

Oh yeah. There are tens of thousands of gun ranges throughout Europe. Hell, you can do crazy things at ranges owned by companies that provide shooting and combat training, like firing from a helicopter or learning to use an APC machine gun. These sorta services are available to any adult citizen that wants to use them (and can pay).

A very common type of visitor to USA gun ranges are tourists from other developed countries. I wouldn't expect this if these were equally accessible in other countries.

I mean, specific regulations and accessability will vary from one country to another, and I assume the same applies to US states. But in general - yes, shooting ranges are available at most any major town and city. Hunting is of course a different set of regulations but yeah absolutely you can hunt, assuming ofcourse you follow basic hunting laws.

I think the main difference comes down to culture. While gun ranges are readily available throughout Europe, I'm guessing the demand for them is significantly lower compared to the US, as is the demand for gun owning and using overall. And I believe the reason why is at the crux of the issue.

My guess is that a lot of tourists use gun ranges in the US because its "part of the experience", not because they don't have gun ranges back home. From a European perspective, and looking at google maps, seems like most Europeans have a gun range less than an hour drive away.

Edit: just to stress the point about how widely different things are compared to some US states. In Europe, you can shoot an AR-15 at a gun range (with proper training first) but you can't buy one, keep it in your car and go grocery shopping with it. I mean, I'm sure people and the police in the US won't be happy about you wandering around with an AR-15 but the fact that you can even do it is striking from a European perspective. And the fact that this activity is protected under the guise of "democracy" and "self-defence" makes it that much worse. Sure, the AR-15 might be an exxagerated examples (but only slightly) but the same applies for hand guns - it would be seen nearly the same way.

Seems to me like the only logical reason to own a gun in the US (unless, say, you use it professionally) is to defend against all the other people who own guns and might decide to use them for all sorts of reasons, including highly irrational ones. So we're back to the highly insidious cycle I mentioned before. There is only one way to stop the cycle and I don't see a logical reason why tougher gun laws haven't been enacted.

I think answer you're begging for here is "crime" or "violence against other humans"

Truthfully, I was thinking more along the lines of "identity", "entertainment" and "machoism". And while these often unfortunately do interesect with "crime" and "violence", I wouldn't think they were the primary reasons because I don't think that would be reflective of most people's actual attitudes and behaviours (regardless of nationality). I did not mean to imply that the dominant reason is "crime", lean on the stereotype of gun violence in the US or paint every gun owner as a psychopath. I can see how that might have been construed based on the way I wrote it. But I don't actually believe in any that.

My main point was that the actual reasons for both owning and using guns are not related to the reasoning of the 2nd amendment eventhough it is the law that makes all of this possible. And how could they be related - that reasoning is centuries old and simply nomlonger valid due to the way power is exercised in the 21st century.

The discussion of whether the reasons have more to do with crime or entertainment is an interesting one that I didn't really actually mean to touch on in my first comment because its kind of a side point to the main point I was making (though still obviously important). As you point out, and this seems to be corraborated by Pewpew, most Americans use their guns for the stated reasons of "go shooting" or "go hunting". Interestingly, you can hunt or go to a shooting range in most other developed countries and the fact they don't have an extensive right to bear arms enshrined in their constitution doesn't seem to be limiting that entertainment value. Nor has it impacted the ability of people in those countries to fight against tyranny. What it has done, however, is significantly limit gun violence, to the point where there are several hundred times more gun-related deaths in the US compared to Western European countries. Not even gonna mention countries with even tougher gun laws like Japan - the difference is staggering - in the thousands of times, at least according to the University of Washington.

Culture and ideology are the primary words here, I think. As the epistemological crisis deepens, I fear ideological violence will continue to rise, and guns will be a very combustible ingredient in that dynamic.

Again, did not mean to paint all gun owners as looney criminals. But the relationship to the culture of power is most definayely there and we should very much be afriad of those who use the notions of self-defence and democracy as a guise to enact their power fantasies, or even worse - as a tool of ideology and politics.

It's really weird to see people in the US from both the left and the right protect the 2nd amendment and see it as some sort of mechanism to protect against authoritarianism. In fact, weird is putting it lightly - it's actually kinda insane.

I'll spare you the whole debate format because I don't think there is any real arguing with the science and statistics behind the mass spread and use of guns in the US. I also don't think there is any stopping the gun culture in the current paradigm because the dogma behind it has been parrotted and regurgated so much that it's basically part of the nation's psyche.

Guns only matter as much as the ideas of the people carrying them. Most guns in the US are not used for self-defence or to protect against government overreach, are they? When it comes down to it those are not the real reasonS why most people buy and use guns, are they? They sure make it easy though, not just to buy and use but also to rationalize and justify violence and killings.

Fighting fire with fire creates an inferno. You're not going to put out the fire with more fire. You're just gonna make it worse and feel self-righteous while doing it, creating an insidious cycle of violence.

It's the 21st century. The name of the game is cognitive warfare and liberty-loving people are losing badly. Guns won't change that.

Pretty sure they were being sarcastic

Not sure where you're from but since you were talking about Europe: IDs are mandatory throughout most (but not all) of the EU, as well as in most non-EU countries.

In my EU country, you could get a new ID in as little as a couple of days if you are willing to pay the extra fees which are actually not at all that much. You also have to pay if you lose your ID thiugh this sum is also not that much.

External self-determination cares little about national laws. That's kinda the whole point. The real question is what type of conditions need to be met before a right to external self-determination arises and is recognized by other countries. In general, most countries don't recognize a right to unilateral seccession under any condition. At the same time, it is also agreed that if a state were to make the practice of internal self-determination virtually impossible or meaningless, then a right to external self-determination should arise. In which case any "no backsies" rule under US national law (even the constitution) may be seen as a breach of fundamental rights.

With independence, it usually comes down to who has the bigger stick (in both material and ideational terms). The are definitely scenarios in which US states can make a valid legal case for independence but the conditions for that still haven't been met as most international lawyers will agree that Americans in all states are afforded the right to internally self-determine. For now. Things are changing quickly.

1 month old account. Over 430 posts. Seemingly all of them simping hard for Elon Musk.

What's most terrifying is that they're probably not even a paid shill. Chances are they're either a troll or equally likely - cognitively captured, like millions of others, spewing repeatedly debunked falsehoods at every corner in a perpetual show of one-upmanship. And ultimately - trapped in a vicious circle of lies.

This is the world they are building. This is the lobotomized reality that awaits all of us if we don't figure out a way to build a sustainable, high-quality information environment.

Playing the reverse psychology game, aye?