daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

528

Joined

2 yr. ago

So, you know how in total recall he has this tracker inside of his head that he defeats with a wet towel and by just kinda pulling it out?

So, you know how it's a pretty common thing in movies, like MI:3, suicide squad, I think agents of shield, unthinkable, the belko experiment, where guys just have like, bombs in their heads?

So, you know how scientists have used wifi to see through people's walls?

So, you know how we currently have a bunch of wifi satellites spanning the earth?

So, you know how we've kind of automatically selected in our political system for a bunch of mercenary politicians that only ever act out of their own self-interest and are easily manipulated with like, free lunches, lobbying, and pamphlets?

That's kind of my like, optimal ghost in the shell style conspiracy dealio. I dunno, I'm sure you'd need some way to get around people just getting CT scans and stuff like that, and a lead case would probably still just show up like a tumor or something, and any electronics you had would look pretty obvious too, so, who knows. You'd need to put like a water based gel around it or make it out of non-metal materials or something, which sounds a lot harder.

Other plans include maybe like a nuclear killdozer spidertank. Kind of like a metal gear, but instead of just having a nuke on it, the nuke serves the dual purpose of also being a mobile power source, either in the form of a nuclear reactor, which you could maybe use the heat of to drive hydraulics and like a heat pump or something, or a nuclear battery, and then you use it for political leverage. Maybe you could have nuclear satellites sent up from like an island or something. Just a bunch of satellites with nukes on them, and then they fall and nuke things and then you can use that for leverage maybe once you have enough of them. Maybe especially if you were like a private company or like you were sending them all up in disguise as a different kind of thing, because then nobody could really like strike back at you without risking getting nuked by a nuclear satellite, and then MAD doesn't matter at all because they'd be nuking a bunch of random bystanders. Something along those lines.

Dunno, just thinking of some stuff that you could maybe do that's like, more interesting or better than just like "oh I run around and kill all the politicians I don't like, like I'm shooting puppies in a gravel pit", you know? Because then those politicians just get replaced with other, shittier politicians as a result of our political system being kind of dogshit, and even beyond that, as a result of like, a majority of the population being kind of stupid, complacent, and perhaps even actively evil, if the behavior of white america broadly for the last 200 years is anything to go by. You know, burning the collective futures of your children basically just out of spite for racial minorities and to exclude them as much as is possible. Dunno, part of me says, don't blame them, they've been tricked by the rich, and the population's critical support for those causes was helpful to actually making progress, part of me says, the real progress was made by relatively small or extremist groups in the population, and that politicians and the majority white population will use every tactic in the playbook to keep things going as much as possible contrary to whatever political will you try to cook up, which is why you see sharecropping, segregation, redlining, denial of VA loans, increased police spending, the crack epidemic, and all that only comes about into the common cultural consciousness like a decade after the damage has been done.

I dunno, in any case, I don't think you could solve all the problem in 24 hours alone, you'd have to set something up for a longer term set of solutions.

Also begs the question of, what are "consequences"? Where does an action begin or end, really? If I steal a million dollars from the bank, am I free from the consequence of having a million dollars? I dunno, I sit on the couch, and I'm free from the negative consequence of having not become god, which, in comparison to the infinite positive consequences of becoming god, is a negative consequence. Maybe something along those lines.

I gotta say this is a little bit funny to post this and then also there's another guy posting this in the same reply, it's very botlike. no comment on the politics but I find it amusing as a response

but have you considered: what if I drain you of twelve gorillion dollars, or give you nothing, and that's the negotiation? what then? have you considered that: what if I just like heedlessly extend the metaphor to the current political state of affairs in such a way that it reinforces my own biases and points, what then, what would you do then? surely, the logic doesn't hold up if I tell you that the alternative is horrible, right?

wait, you're telling me the logic does hold up still in that instance? how about no? have you considered what if I just said no, to that? what if I just denied the logic and decided to be obstinate, what then? what if actually, I like eating shit, huh?

I have no clue where you live or how deep into the woods you're going on average, but going into the woods alone, at least for me, is easily one of the best case scenarios for gun use. Whether that be hunting overpopulated deer, or taking out perhaps an ill bear that's running at you that has holes in it's brain because of overpopulated deer prions, or is starving because humans have destroyed it's habitat, or maybe a cougar, whatever, that's like. Easily one of the best use cases for guns, to the point that most places which are regarded as broadly not having guns will let people have guns for this purpose, as one of like three approved purposes. Especially it justifies larger calibers of gun which would normally not be really all that uhhh excusable or useful for the vast majority of people. Like what are you on about with this one? It's giving "I have never been in the woods or encountered a large predator".

That's not allowed online! There's only supposed to be rage bait and cat videos, nothing else! No productive conversations spurned from all of this, no jumping off points, just people being mad all the time and talking past each other endlessly!

The problem is for those of us who go out of our way to make women feel more comfortable and safe in male dominated environments, hearing women treat you with the same disdain as a sex pest just makes you stop giving a shit.

You're not supposed to be doing it because it gets you good will, changes people's minds, or changes people's minds about the behaviors of men generally. With the prevalence of SA, the behavior of certain men, and cultural norms, that shit will probably only occur with both large scale social and socioeconomic change, and probably also with therapy.

No, the reason you're supposed to be doing it, is because it's a good thing to do. Anything else is a knock on effect that is honestly lucky if it occurs.

hey, at least you didn't give yourself a prince albert

I mean, it's an obvious bait question, right, and the question is so good at being obvious bait that it's kind of become like this meme which typifies this cultural quirk, right, so now I expect to see it like, at least for the next month or two, right. At least the half-life of memes on the internet is super short now so I can probably just ignore it and see it rapidly replaced with another shitty obvious bait meme.

In any uhhh, in any case, they're both pretty unpredictable, right, but a bear can kill you pretty quick, and a man seems easier to deal with if we're talking like, both are going to come at you and kill you in sort of a worst case scenario, right. I dunno about the relative statistics of bear attacks vs like, random attacks from men, or you know bear encounters resulting in attacks vs encounters with men resulting in like, random attacks or SA or like even just creepy comments or behavior, and maybe the tradeoff of, saw a bear, vs, saw a weird dude, is worth it if the dudes are making comments at such an outsized rate and bears are not attacking that frequently. Probably depends on the bear, too, like a black bear, probably fine, grizzly, you're probably fucked.

I'm pretty sure that the highest rates of SA and murder and shit like that tend to be from people that are in your immediate vicinity, though, people you know, either in immediate friendships or one step removed from that, right, rather than just from random dudes walking in the woods. I'm a random dude in the woods a lot of the time, I do my best to avoid other people as much as possible, not because of the possibility of assault, but because I don't want to be met with awkwardness or like, someone who's afraid of my dog or has a dog of their own which is aggressive or whatever. So you should probably be more worried about the dude taking you on the hike, rather than the random dude you're seeing on the hike, I'd say.

A lot of this also comes down to dudes not understanding like, the institutional power that they wield over women, which is what I see as the main problem, rather than this like. Idea that all men are evil, or whatever, Which is partially fair looking at the stats, but is also kind of prejudice, and definitely is a way that some women feel either based on past experiences or based on like, propagated stereotypes. Men can oftentimes just SA someone and then basically get away without, either because they have power over finances, living situation, employment situation, because they're more adequately able to leverage a social network against whoever they've SA'd with the same mechanisms, because they're able to psychologically manipulate people via the same mechanisms. That's more what patriarchy refers to, rather than like. Unga bunga men big and strong, men could take advantage of me, men all crazy, kind of mentality, which I think is what a lot of men would assume it to be.

In any case, I think bear spray would probably help both situations. Maybe jiu jitsu? I dunno, I will say, I fear the cougar, the puma, the mountain lion. I live in the PNW and definitely you hear stories about hikers or joggers occasionally who just disappear for like a week or two with no explanation, and then the missing persons case comes up that they got killed by a mountain lion, which, uhh, sucks, and probably we should stop building human settlements in ways which encroach on the potentially mobile territories of large roaming predator species which are important to curbing the spread of shit like deer which can completely destabilize an ecosystem.

me when I am malthusian:

That's probably just their truck being shite, without regular maintenance, and such. As you've pointed out, lots of them don't own their trucks, and "rolling coal" generally refers to the practice of intentionally modifying a diesel truck to shoot out unburnt diesel fuel, usually through a straight pipe, and usually angled to be facing other cars or people they're hazing or whatever, from what I've seen. It's not unlikely that semi truckers, which is a sector that uses a particularly large amount of diesel compared to the normal car having population, would have a percentage of the fleet at any given time which is falling behind on maintenance to try to eek out more profit. Maybe their engines are just running rich, or probably more likely they have clogged air filters. Dunno what would be causing it to get past the catalytic converter and the rest of the exhaust manifold though, and just blow out straight with black smoke. That all seems like it would probably have to be modified intentionally, to see it with any frequency, ja? I dunno, hard to say.

I dunno I also say you've seen it around austin and san antonio, around college campuses, and that checks out to me as a more political kind of phenomenon, then just, say, seeing people running around town and hazing bikers or whatever.

So, I dunno. Does it count as rolling coal if your car is just shite?

yeah, but why didn't tom bombadil just teleport them to mount doom, or whatever? or the eagles fly them? huh? checkmate, libtard.

Why is this point so hard to understand?

It's not, they're making a separate but contiguous point about how the market naturally incentivizes shittier tactics from it's participants, and how Steam, Valve, and Gaben are exceptions to the rule.

Highly recommend the Internet Historian video about no man’s sky.

I wouldn't, that dude's a nazi

So Native Americans should just start murdering Americans until they leave?

wellllll...

Or or, if you wanna defend Tankies, I literally dont have time for you. Do I give Nazi’s time to explain the nuances of their views? No, same goes for Tankies

That's what I said people should do though? Just ignore comments and move on if they're not actually willing to engage with what's being said

You could just tell them that supporting Russia and China is bad, or that those are authoritarian regimes, and cite sources, rather than dismissing them out of hand, based on what the surface level interpretation of their arguments are, you know?

We have more than a one word limit here on Lemmy, people can respond with thought out rebuttals, rather than one word dismissals. It's just that the one word dismissals are easier to write and understand, so they're more likely to get thrown at an argument early and then up votes after someone skims a long ass set of paragraphs.

There's not like an either-or option there, I also really question your "well if we don't discard tankies then we're gonna have to discard all communists, and how would you like that!". That doesn't make any sense to me. Your "Pick one" is a false dichotomy. People are capable of more nuanced conversations, just labelling people and throwing around out of hand dismissals isn't going to be helpful in actually working out anything, convincing those people, or convincing bystanders. Even if you were to convince bystanders with such a tactic, you'd be convincing them in a bad faith way where they don't fully understand the usage of the term, so they'd be just as likely to throw it around as an out of hand dismissal without understanding what it means.

But then I suppose, you know, it's probably gonna be easier for most people to just call me a tankie and move on, right, on the basis that my argument advocating for nuanced responses and more well-reasoned argumentation is actually carrying water and "providing a smokescreen for tankies", so I might as well be one, right? Term gets stretched even further.

I have always been of the belief that if you are to respond, it better be with a well-reasoned and dignified comment, rather than just a kind of lazy dismissal. If people are doing shit that's actually against the rules, then report them. If they're engaging in bad faith behavior, you are more likely to reveal that by responding to them with good faith behavior than also responding with bad faith behavior. If you aren't going to say something nice, don't bother to say anything at all, or, put another way, don't feed the trolls.

Dunno why internet rules 101 is becoming such an uncommon thing now.

Treatment was less bad in Cuba iirc but still included sending people to go work on sugar plantations, which is pretty back-breaking and horrifying labor. I mean, horrifying to the point that the Spanish colonial state were willing to force their slaves to do it, you know?

Luckily this isn't an issue anymore as cuba has somewhat recently liberalized their constitution and legislated free medical care for trans people and decriminalized homosexuality, probably in no small part due to the "thaw" that Obama put in place (probably one of his small wins), opening them up for better tourism and money, that trump then reversed and Biden has maintained.

But shhh, you didn't hear any that from me, Cuba's only allowed to be evil.

yeah that's too much singular linguistic prescriptivism for me. I've definitely seen a litany of people here called tankies. Lots of people just decrying US imperialism, particularly what's happening in Gaza, lots of people criticizing Biden, that's a classic way to get accused of being a tankie, I think I've also seen people advocating for basic shit like healthcare being called tankies. Prison reform is a big one that'll get you called a tankie, as well as lots of anti-police takes, for whatever reason.

Yeah. It's a term that's like originating out of apologia for the suppression of the Hungarian revolution, it's not used for that anymore. The definition has changed historically and from person to person over time. It doesn't have this clear meaning that you seem to think it does. It can have that clear meaning for you, sure, you've defined your use case, but you can't really guarantee that every other person using that term is going to use it correctly. It would be, you know, theoretically, pretty advantageous for some right wingers to pose as left wing and then just kind of throw around a term commonly used in left wing circles as a derogatory term to shut down discussions, with basically no coherence to use.

but safe for other vehicles and people too (which means lower hood heights and lower weight).

Small note on this, but better crash compatibility and an upper weight limit might also increase the relative safety of bicycles, motorcycles, and even potentially some larger local wildlife, on top of just increasing safety for pedestrians and people driving relatively smaller cars, like sedans.

don't forget our great first rate healthcare, best and most innovative in the world