azulon @ azulon @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

16

Joined

1 yr. ago

Brutal!

It's actually curious how does one arrive at the idea of using plants like that in the first place, when they are an early human or an orangutan. Probably at first, they just applied random plant matter to cover up the wound, or chewed plant matter to cool it down (it will keep moisture for longer than water). And then noticed that some plants are actually more effective at that.

Exactly, which is why I always preferred to keep amphibians as pets. No smell at all. And mammals all stink.

I don't see it that way, but okay. And tyranny of majority could be interpreted twofold here: it's probably a tyranny for the majority against protesters to tell them that they can't protest at the university, but it's also tyranny of majority for 10000 protesters to tell 1000 students of a university that they don't care about their wish to study in peace? No?

Surely if you live in Iran or something just as oppressive, protesting against the government is probably more important than studies and even in the eventual best interests of students. But at that point (as I mentioned), permits and restrictions are irrelevant: go protest in Iran without a permit regardless or whatever. You don't need to take opinions of something as ridiculous as Iranian government into account.

You can say that about any tool of power or oppression

A lot of laws that are very necessary are tools of oppression, at least potentially. Yet no one is arguing that they should go. I guess my main point here is: it's best to describe the law in terms of its necessity. Is it necessary or useful to require pre-notification/approval of all mass meetings of people (regardless of the purpose even)? I think it might be useful. Is it necessary to have SOME regulations in place for mass meeting (like forbidding them around daycare facilities, for an obvious example)? I think definitely yes. Now, if a government was actually oppressive and unrepresentative of people, and the only way to protest was to do it at a daycare facility - I would support it, but such circumstances are extreme and at that point permits and approval is irrelevant: if the government spits on people, you can spit at its permits.

I don't entirely agree: in a real democracy, government is an extension of people. They are hired brutes and managers that do the job that people tell them to do. So what if the majority of people collectively don't want mass protests at the universities? Or that they want to be protected from masses of people randomly obstructing traffic?

Yes, it is possible for a government to use those restrictions as means of oppression: when people don't even agree with those laws, but the government tries to shut the protesters down regardless. In such a case, a permit doesn't even matter: just go out without a permit, because the government does not represent the people. If there were no permits, they would find some other loopholes to try and shut the protesters down: COVID restrictions, endangerment, (staged) complaints from neighbours, provocation etc. In Belarus, Russia, or Iran, they have millions of excuses ready to why all the protesters must go home or be arrested, the lack of permit isn't even that common these days.

P.S. Also wanna point out: I'm not from the US.

Well, what if someone decides to throw a mass protest by a daycare facility, or at a national park? Or in a way that makes the lives of locals unbearable? So I imagine yes, there are circumstances where a permit isn't approved. I imagine when it's not, the government should propose a way to change the protest (e.g., it's location) to make it approvable. But what if protesters don't want to budge?

Look, I am aware that oppressive governments use it as an excuse to shut down unwanted critique. I'm just saying that inherently, there's nothing wrong with this kind of approval, and I'm sure that if we went through it, you would agree that there are circumstances where a permit shouldn't be approved. Oh, and if a government is oppressive, they'll find a way to forbid the protest even without those permits. COVID-restrictions, for example, have been a common excuse lately in some countries. Would you say that genuine COVID-restrictions are unacceptable overall and are a tool of oppressive governments?

That makes sense. Thank you for your help.

But why does it appear in my post but not in posts of others'? Is it link-specific, or something?

To me, it's more surprising that we actually know quite a lot about the brain - and yet we still manage to discover new things about it, even fundamentally new like new cell types. Wow.

I nearly got into trouble once. In a bank. I signed a document, the signature didn't quite match, they kept asking me to redo it ("we need it just like in the passport") but after the third or fourth try they let it through.

A good introductory explanation: https://coldbloodedscience.com/the-art-of-shape/

1. A protest isn't just a speech - it's an act. It's an act of blocking a street, occupying a square, crowding or obstructing a neighborhood etc.
2. In democratic countries, a permit isn't an ask for permission, but more like a notification. Like you say youself: all permits are approved. But you are warning the city that a protest is going to happen here and there.

I imagine that a failure of connection between brain and hands is possible though. We wouldn't call it "stutter" normally (it would probably surface as some kind of tremors), but effectively it would be a sign language alternative to stuttering.

I think Gogol (a classical Russian writer) called a 35 year old lady "an elderly woman". Never paid that close attention, but I imagine such occurrences can be found throughout classical literature.

It has to do with environmental factors, I think. Like maybe their station affects acoustics somehow. Overall, a dialectal linguistic change generally requires a shift of generations.