donuts @ donuts @kbin.social

Posts

4

Comments

673

Joined

2 yr. ago

Just so you know they haven't given up on making your life worse.

Just in time for nobody to care.

You're not gonna sell shit with jacked up sky high prices, even more so in a time of high interest rates. We see your lots are full of unsold cars, both ICE and EV, so maybe it's time to bring prices back down to Earth.

We really ought to change the laws to allow for direct-to-consumer car sales. Dealerships are scummy motherfuckers who are perfectly happy to be a middleman and rip people off.

Oh don't mind me, just pointing out the textbook whataboutism here, folks.

At this point? This shit ain't new man.

Not to mention a SCOTUS who he appointed 33% of, and potentially more if he takes power again.

Probably because they vote... every damn time.

These are the exact type of people that sit at home watching Fox News all day, every day. Getting outraged at ridiculous made up controversies and big lies that are designed to convince them that the only way to "save this country" and solve all of their obvious problems is to vote Republican. And when the Republicans get in power of all three branches, like Trump for example, now it's the "deep state" and the Democrats that are holding him back and the answer is yet again, more Republicans.

That's why I personally will never understand the people who intentionally don't vote. The dumbest, most brainwashed motherfuckers in the entire country are going to show up and help put their corrupt overlords in place, and y'all are just gonna let them pull the rope? That's something i'll never understand.

Oh they hate the phrase "work-life balance"?

Let me just work it into my daily vocab.

Clearly not. There are a thousand ways to read a person. And they work pretty well.

Unless you can read minds, which you can't (even with your tinfoil hat off), then you literally cannot know things which are not somehow expressed (through words, facial expressions, body language, actions, etc.). Words are the most direct way that the vast majority of human beings express themselves, as things like body language and action require third-party interpretation, which obviously adds a second layer of subjectivity, and considerable flaws in terms of misinterpretation, bias, etc.

I stated that it is a privileged class of information. One that is excluded from scrutiny because we declare scrutiny, in this case, untrustworthy.

Simply restarting your opinion may make you feel correct (which you're entitled to feel), but it doesn't actually change the objective truth:

Feelings are "excluded from scrutiny" not because "we [who?] declare scrutiny untrustworthy", but because of the simple objective truth (that almost every human being has intuitively understood since the dawn of time) that the internal thoughts and feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable, and that we rely on expression to have a window into the minds of others.

If you believe that's not true, then answer this:

If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I'm not?

If you can't answer that question, then you straight up have no argument in the first place, and that alone answers your original question.

So now I've lead you to water, and it's up to you whether you drink or not. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this.

Of course people lie, and they could easily lie about how they're feeling. But what possible basis do you have to argue against what someone else says they're feeling?

If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry, for example, how could you possibly make an argument that I'm not?

You could see that I just ate a sandwich, but that doesn't mean I don't still feel hungry. In fact, you could see that I just ate 10 sandwiches, but it's entirely possible for someone to still feel hungry, based on how the brain and human psyche work.

The best case arguement is the opinion that a person's actions are seemingly inconsistent with a certain stated feeling: for example a widow who says that she's crippled with sorrow, only to be caught going on dates with other men. But again, you're not arguing feelings there, you're arguing an opinion about the consistency of behavior.

The feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable to us. Expression (words, facial expressions, body language, behavior, etc) is our only window into the feelings of others.

You see how this creates a privileged class of information, right?

No. It simply reflects the reality that human feelings are only knowable to others by means of expression.

If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I'm not?

You have none. How I feel inside is unknowable to others. It is a fundamental truth of subjectivity.

Any information based upon a claim of suffering becomes inscrutable.

Objective truth and facts cannot be argued, only uncovered.

Likewise feelings, while subjective, cannot be argued, only expressed. (Again, because the feelings of others are unknowable.)

If you want to argue something, then I recommend arguing subjective opinions, and hopefully you do so based on a bedrock of facts.

That’s a good argument for disallowing it. It kind of breaks the system.

Disallowing what? Feelings? And what system?

I'm not even sure exactly what you're asking here, but emotional states like suffering are subjective expressions of feeling, not opinions.

Trying to argue about some else's experiences with regards to suffering is like trying to argue that someone isn't happy, sad, cold, warm, hungry, thirsty, tired, scared, etc.

As always the ultimate authority on how a person thinks and feels is the person themselves.

In other words, you can argue opinions (hopefully based on a foundation of unarguable, objective facts), but it makes no sense to try to argue against another person's feelings.

You could argue, if you do desired, the opinion that people are too emotionally sensitive, but even that seems like a waste of time to me, because it's very unlikely emotional sensitivity is a choice. (If it was, you could also simply choose to be more empathetic and understanding of others, just in the same way that you want other people to become less sensitive to their own feelings.)

Personally I have better things to do with my time than argue about other people's feelings.

Ok now do the other 200, shitbags.

How about Tom Petty? Southern rocker with great lyrics and no bullshit. One of the greats as far as I'm concerned.

Nobody ask how all the wealth has trickled up to a handful of techno-billionaires at the very top!

Voting a third party is not throwing your vote away. It’s actually often the best way to make your vote matter.

I strongly disagree with this.

Elections are simply a case of math. If you abstain from voting, write in some random name, or otherwise vote for a candidate who is statistically incapable of winning, then there are only still only two outcomes for your vote:

• In the best case scenario, like you're describing, your vote has no effect on the outcome and your 2nd place candidate happens to win anyway.
• In the worst case scenario, however, vote splitting leads to the well-documented phenomenon known as the spoiler effect. In which case the 3rd most popular candidate, who may not represent anything close to the will of the democratic plurality, will win.

Personally I always plan around the worst case scenario when making important decisions, and so I don't believe in the concept of the "protest vote". Especially since so little concrete information can be derived from "reading the tea leaves" of 3rd party votes. (A big part of your premise revolves around the idea that someone out there will somehow get whatever message you're trying to send by voting for a 3rd party candidate. And that's obviously a very indirect and abstract form of protest even in the best case scenario. )

Also I think it's a strech to attribute easily 20th century work reforms to 3rd parties as they exist today considering two points: (1) there was a radical shift in political power, generally towards progressivism, at that time and (2) it can be argued that many of these reforms could be attributed more to labor unions in general than any one political party.

Vote how you want, or not at all, but we can't escape math in the end. Statistically speaking, a protest vote is at best a benign waste of a vote and at worst the cause of undemocratic election outcomes via the spoiler effect. So I'll continue to recommend against it, and recommend for more democratic voting systems that are less prone to manipulation and spoilage.

What's more, people have agency that allows them to seek new information on their own and they form subjective opinions.

As human beings we also spend every moment of our lives taking in all kinds of various sensory information that informs our eventual character and mind (and that's to say nothing of our individual mental/neurological nature). We also have an imperfect and complex ability to retain information.

When a human being expresses a thought they are expressing it based on a lifetime of broad experiences that are unique to their specific circumstances. Similarly, when a human being paints a painting of a tree they are doing it not based purely on some library of other people's art, but also based on their own lifetime of experience.

People who equate "artificial intelligence" with human intelligence and lived experience are completely off base.

This is fearmongering bullshit that incorrectly equates machine learning with human intelligence and is totally ignorant of the law.

I get it, you want to use AI. Don't worry, it'll stick around.

But the free ride of big companies owned by millionaires and billionaires helping themselves to every piece of data and knowledge that happens to be on the internet somewhere is going to end. Every bubble bursts eventually, and hopefully AI comes out better in the end.

Absolutely batshit to attack a piece of free and open source software that everybody loves. I guess they must have struggled with the donut tutorial.

I think you're confusing Biden for Hamas or Netanyahu, both of which have advocated for genocide of the other.

Biden's stance on Israel has been no different than Bernie's. And that's probably because the situation in the Levant is more nuanced than you understand.