TheBananaKing @ TheBananaKing @lemmy.world

Posts

29

Comments

843

Joined

2 yr. ago

Has been for decades.

This never was about Hamas, and never was about the hostages.

It's about exterminating Palestinians and destroying their infrastructure, while ensuring that enough of the survivors are radicalised enough to keep the military funding going.

What is the simplest proof that P=NP?

Waht is the simplest complete unified model of physics?

How do I make you grant me unlimited wishes?

Bastards.

Gee do you think bombing hospitals and schools could have something to do with it?

mmmnope. Heard of the clathrate bomb?

There is a fuckton of methane locked in permafrost soils.

Once they start to melt, you get a chain reaction.

The question he some interesting angles.

I don't think AI is people yet, or close to it - so the easy answer is 'it'.

But let's have a think about pronouns and the purpose they serve; accurately capturing the true nature of the referent is not and has never been the point.

Gendered pronouns are an easy example of this: you don't ferinstance need to know ThE bIoLoGICaL sEx of a person in order to refer to them. You don't need to go rummage in a stranger's underwear or take DNA samples in order to call them 'he' or 'she', the words work just fine without any such knowledge. And indeed if you go intentionally misgendering someone because wElL aCkShEwAlLy, all you do is confuse the person you're talking to (and seem like a dick).

Pronouns, in short, are a placeholder for a noun phrase, and we have different ones to help us distinguish between the different nouns in play at any given time. By the time you've parsed out gender, plurality, animate and object/subject distinctions, it's generally a poorly written sentence that has any ambiguity left.

So the question you need to ask is what most usefully aligns with the listener's expectations? How are you framing the conversation?

Consider an interaction with something of indeterminate gender, sentient-acting but not-people: a crow, for example. A crow comes up to you, accepts a chunk of your sandwich then brings you a stone, seemingly in exchange.

When recounting the story, do you call the crow an it or a they?

That's going to depend on a bunch of things - whether it's some random wild bird or someone's pet, how many nouns you need to juggle, and whether you're more interested in the bird or the stone.

The choices you make set up the framing of the conversation, reflect your perspective and shape perception.

Whether an LLM is people... isn't really the point.

Similarly, when they say NAIRU, you can and should mentally substitute "inexhaustible scab labour pool".

When investors do better, nobody else does better. The whole system is based on harvesting wealth from society as a whole, and concentrating it in the top 1%. Ever hear of the Gini coefficient?

Yes, price-gouging companies jacking up their prices and paying fuckall in wages are the direct instrument of suffering. But they do so in order to provide yacht money for the investor class, and in so doing they impoverish literally everyone else.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/americans-are-going-hungry-strong-economy-rcna128105

Whenever anyone says "the economy", you can and should mentally substitute it with "rich people's yacht money".

Rich people's yacht money doing well doesn't do shit for 90% of the population. It doesn't pay the rent, put food on the table or clothes on their back. They can't afford to see a doctor or ride the damn bus.

And you want them to be happy because some stockbroker is getting a second holiday in the Maldives this year?

Stupid arrogant fucks.

Israel: not if we destroy all the hospitals

That's kind of implied in the concept of hostages, yes.

For one, it's a genetic disorder that's linked to ancestry.

For another, there's a huge social-justice issue around race in the US. Black people are hugely overrepresented in prisons, and there are vast, ingrained and systemic prejudices and barriers to equality everywhere you look.

This is why ferinstance efforts to enforce photo-ID requirements for voting would significantly disenfranchise Black voters (which is the real reason conservatives keep trying to push for it), because a disproportionate percentage of Black people simply don't have the means to obtain such ID - vastly more than the number of white people in a similar position.

Take centuries of explicitly racist law and policy directly excluding and oppressing Black people. Wind back the explicit racism over the last handful of decades, but quietly replace it with exclusion and oppression based on the socieconomic disparity thus created. Now you can claim to have a colourblind legal/etc system, yet continue to preserve and promote disadvantage that ends up depending on race.

And because social mobility is an absolute joke over there (as it is in most places, tbh), then the opportunities and resources available to you will depend heavily and primarily on the opportunities and resources available to your family and community for many generations back. There's not just generational wealth to deal with, but generational influence and networking; you can't be in with the Right People unless your parents were, and neither could they, rinse and repeat. And when the Right People instantly dismiss you on sight, or even just by seeing your name, then you're fucked.

So when someone says that a hundred thousand people in the US have a crippling and debilitating disease, and the great majority are Black - yeah, it means something. It means that a chunk of the population are getting a raw deal on top of the shit sandwich they've been handed just by being born, and that this is just one more thing that, for the most part, white people don't have to care about. And because the fucked up healthcare system in the US is so profit-driven, that means there's going to be vastly less done about it than if it were equally spread across demographics.

well he is paying for it.

1: It's extremely common for people to be biased in favour of a group they're part of, since they benefit from that support.

2: It's also extremely common for group members to pretend to be outsiders when supporting their group, precisely because of (1). "Oh well, if this person is supporting the group despite being an outsider, they must be super-altruistic, and therefore their cause must be super-righteous."

3: If a group meets with widespread disapproval, then one way to silence external support for it is accusing the supporter of (2) - suggesting that not only are they one of the hated group, and also showing how dishonest the group members truly are.

4: Dunking on out-group members - especially via (3) - strengthens the bond of the in-group.

This seems more like a rhetorical question than an actual question, since you're mostly answering it yourself.

Are you actually looking for answers, or just making a point?

(I'm not saying your point is invalid, of course...)

Or maybe they just really love fascists

Israel: Strikes on investigators deliberate...

Israel bombed, burned, starved and shot a hundred times more during Gaza genocide. What's your point?