Skip Navigation

Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her] @ Zuzak @hexbear.net
Posts
0
Comments
262
Joined
5 yr. ago

  • For instance, the existence of japanese technical schools in China is irrefutable evidence to these people that there's some sort of Japanese Great Replacement plan to... replace Chinese people with Japanese people?

    Wouldn't this require Japanese people to have kids?

  • I think I see your point a bit more, I didn't really think about the implications of American fascism being a new thing. Also didn't want to single you out or anything.

  • I hear you, I just feel like the meme was about the ordinary soldiers rather than the government. Fully respect wanting to correct the record regarding the government, just felt it was worth a reminder that there were people like the soldier in the meme who did sacrifice a lot fighting for a worthy cause and who do deserve respect, and our criticism of the government shouldn't overshadow that. Just a small pushback on that, but one I felt was important.

  • There were also 400,000 soldiers who died fighting fascists under the US flag, who were not responsible for their government's decisions regarding the use of nuclear weapons, nor Operation Paperclip, nor any other major government decisions.

  • I gotta push back against the criticism that several of my comrades in here are expressing. Y'all are talking about the US collaborating with Nazis after the war, and you're not wrong about that, but that was the US government, while this meme is about a soldier. The soldiers on the ground fought for all sorts of reasons, they might have opposed the Nazis for all sorts of ideological reasons, or they might have just been doing it out of loyalty, or any of the other reasons soldiers fight. But there were people on the ground fighting the Nazis under a US flag who were committed antifascists and even communists. As for the others, whatever their reasons, when the call came to save the world from fascism, they answered, and were willing to sacrifice life and limb to do it. That's pretty heroic if you ask me. And they weren't the ones who made the decision to let Nazis into NATO and stuff afterwards.

    I understand the defensiveness against attempts to glorify the US while villifying the USSR and downplay their (more substantial) sacrifice and contribution to the war. But there's nothing in this meme that's doing that, and there were Americans who contributed to the war effort. Is it necessary to kneejerk react to a meme celebrating someone who fought the Nazis by talking about the government that ruled over them? People aren't defined by their nation or their government.

    Let's not forget the proud tradition of people like Woody Guthrie, who explicitly tied the war effort to a broader idea of antifascism, nor of the people on the front lines who he inspired.

  • Pirating Andor bc Disney+ is on the BDS list. One of the best shows I've ever seen but I'd sooner drop it than violate the boycott, even if money was no object. As things stand, piracy is the only ethical way to watch it.

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • CP violation in weak interactions

    Weak force, why don't you have a seat over there

  • Jerkoff

    Jump
  • You could say that but you could also say that they're biden their time

    Is this horseshoe theory?

  • The cross is obviously a T, making it "MST3," unfortunately he didn't have enough room for the K.

    Fr tho I have no idea the logic behind a cross being 1 and a skull being 3.

  • Algae rock? Yeah, what about it?

  • What's your plan when your preferred party nominates someone above your maximum age?

  • But isn't that the whole reason that the concept was developed in the first place? It's not very sound to come up with a hypothesis to explain an observation and then rely on that same observation to support the hypothesis. The concept needs to be able to predict and explain new observations, or else it has no utility and is still essentially just a placeholder.

    You talked about, like, "vibes-based reasons," but is there a reason to accept the explanation of dark matter aside from vibes? If it's just about feeling satisfied that you have an explanation for the phenomenon, that's vibes. Like, relativity, you have to accept and account for or GPS wouldn't work nearly as accurately as they do. But everyone could reject the hypothesis of dark matter and it wouldn't really change anything.

    Explanations for things are a dime a dozen. There's no real value in having an explanation (other than personal satisfaction, i.e. vibes) for something unless that explanation helps you to make predictions or manipulate objective reality in some way. That's not to say that it couldn't, at some later date, meet those requirements, but at this point dark matter is barely anymore useful than saying a wizard did it - a hypothesis that also explains the observations perfectly well while being only slightly less congruous with the rest of our understanding of physics.

  • Dark matter is a case of giving a phenomenon a name and then thinking that because it has a name you've explained it. Dark matter isn't really an explanation, it's essentially just a placeholder to say, "Our equations suggest there should be matter here but there isn't, so maybe there's some kind of matter we can't observe? Or something?" It's not an answer or an explanation, it's just a term for an unexplained phenomenon that guesses vaguely about it what might be, and until we can verify the existence of dark matter through other means and explain why it defies other observations, it's little more than a placeholder and cannot be treated as settled science. This isn't really out of line with the mainstream view, the mainstream view is just that there aren't any better explanations (yet) so that's what we're stuck with (for now).

  • Frog speedrun any%

  • Fascinating. So if one state doesn't recognize another, that means that it "clearly states its aim is to fully annex it." So for example, the US doesn't recognize the government of Afghanistan, so that means the US "clearly states" it aims to reinvade and fully annex Afghanistan, do I have that right?

    Or maybe you meant to say that Russia implicitly suggested that it intended to fully annex Ukraine, according to your speculation?

  • they have clearly stated was fully conquering Ukraine?

    Source?