Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)BO
Posts
0
Comments
966
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • That's not what can be understood from a comment that simply condemn violence with one example though. I mostly agree with you otherwise.

    But I am starting to change my mind recently with a simple parallel : strike is a kind of violence with a company, and it works very well. A strike in a single company can have positive effects for the people who work there. A global strike can have positive effects for everyone.

    I am starting to think that physical violence may have the same property : of course an organised revolution is the best. But in the mean time, I don't think assassinating a CEO is useless. I'm not saying it's what we should do, at least not to this day. But I am wondering: did the last such event had positive or negative effects?

  • You'll soon see what fascists do with violence. In an idealistic world, pacifism is fine. But in reality the threat of violence is still the only thing that can prevent violence from the opposing side.

    Violence has been used to shut down leftist for decades now. Pacifism did nothing to prevent capitalism from degenerating. At some point one need to accept the reality.

  • That's a lie. Capitalists will only make compromises if their lives (directly or figuratively) is in danger. That's what History demonstrates.

    Right now they're so comfortable with power and propaganda that they'd rather make fascism happen.

    Violence is the only language they understand. I'm not talking about everyone here, I'm talking about the capitalist overlords. They're ruthless monsters who only understands vital threat to their way of life or their life directly.

  • Calling US leftists extremists is the funniest joke I've read today!

    Truth is liberals are much more extremists than most leftists. At some point they will need to realise it and take responsibility for the shit they did for so long.

  • The liberals have to do their mea culpa, not the left. Right now it will soon be a matter of choosing a side : humanism or fascism. Until now the liberals always chose fascism and called the leftists dangerous extremists.

    Choose a side liberals. You made the world what it is today. And you're now blaming the leftists and asking them to support your insanity. That's not how it works. Leftists know which side they are fighting for, and they will suffer the consequences. What about you liberals?

  • You know, if leberals wanted the support of the leftists, they try something called compromises. But the only compromises they're ready to do is with the fascists unfortunately, which the leftists will never support.

    So no, the leftists didn't refuse to make compromises. The liberals did, with the left, because they actually accepted all the compromises with the fascists. And act now surprised that fascism is taking over.

    Liberals are spoiled children incapable of taking accountability for their actions.

  • And if you can earn a million each year as an alternative, why wouldn't you go for it? I love science, but we live in a real world, not in a dream, and this real world decided that science wouldn't be rewarding.

  • The thing is that in a polarised world you support one side or the other, and the sides are the US and China. US is certainly not better deserving support than China, but liberals will call tankie anyone who support China in any way, shape or form. For a liberal it's completely inacceptable to say that China is doing anything better than the US.

  • There is no chance it wasn't meant to be an open world. The witcher 3 was a very successful open world they made.

    Also, CP77 actually is in the style of elden ring that was praised for it, but CP77 came long before it. Most critiques of CP77 missed that part because the game doesn't throw it at your face.

  • Fukushima, in 2024,is a city of 272569 inhabitants. If that's unlivable, I'm fine with it. Hiroshima, Nagazaki and Chernobyl are all inhabited too.

    Saying that nuclear stuff makes places unlivable is plain wrong, it's anti-science. It's comics level of bullshit science. Travel in time is a more serious theory than nuclear stuff destroying the planet.

  • Chernobyl yes, let's talk about it : after the catastrophy, 2 reactors were used until very recently (like until 10 or 20 years ago).

    After the catastrophy, Chernobyl was made into an exclusion zone where people wouldn't be allowed to live. But people came back 10 years after and it's a small village now.

    BTW even Hiroshima and Nagazaki that were annihilated with atomic bombs, that is weapons meant to destroy whole cities, were quickly inhabited again.

    So much for the permanent destruction and millions of years of contamination. CO2 is a far more deadly compound for mankind than any radioactive material. Anti-nuke militants are merely ignorant fanatics.

  • Quantum

    Jump
  • Well, technically a solution of a quantum mechanic equation is a projection on a vector space, so a mediocre answer is merely a projection on this <accurate ; stupid> vector space.

    So your comparison is actually brilliant!