exocrinous @ exocrinous @startrek.website

Posts

0

Comments

413

Joined

1 yr. ago

Realistic and no magick is an oxymoron

Americans think 13 hours in the same state is big? Cute!

The man also concentrated ownership of the means of production in the hands of one person, administered by a hierarchy of national and regional subordinates who controlled the labour of the people and the distribution of resources. This is an economic model known most commonly as feudalism. Now given the term left wing originally referred to opponents of the monarchy in France, I don't see how there's any way to argue in good faith that a feudal dictator was left wing.

Also, I'm a soulist. I recognise that all parts of our experiential reality are subjective and socially constructed. And right now, that reality is defined by the rich and powerful. You cannot fight a war while believing that your enemy's weapons are natural and immutable. You cannot fight the rich from inside a reality they control and win. Even if you kill them all, you'll still live in the world they created. You need to take power over reality for the people. That's the only way anyone can ever be free.

Stalin wasn't far left. The man made being gay illegal. That's not the behaviour of a leftist.

Everything is a bias, everything is subjective, everything is open to interpretation. But most people think their own point of view is unbiased, no matter what it is. This is just a fact that naturally arises from believing in such a thing as unbiased information. It should be obvious. People want to hold whatever viewpoint they think is unbiased, so they do. People can be convinced to become racists, which necessarily implies that people can be convinced racism is unbiased. You didn't think racists all knew they were biased, did you? They think they're unbiased the same as you do, because you're both humans who want to believe that you have the good opinions, and that good opinions are unbiased. And the fact is, you're both equally correct on that front. You're both equally biased. It's just that you're biased in favour of compassion and equality, while they're biased in favour of hatred and supremacy. But the amount of bias is the same, because there's no such thing as an unbiased viewpoint. You just think kindness isn't a bias because you like kindness and you've been taught biases are bad things. Likewise, they think supremacy isn't a bias because they like supremacy and they've been taught biases are bad things. And if you're wondering if there's an alternative to the way both you and this racist think? Yes there is, you can knowingly adopt good biases. I'm knowingly biased in favour of kindness, because I like kindness. I think choosing such a way of thinking makes me more capable of empathising with people I disagree with, understanding why they act the way they do, so I can attack the more foundational reasons for their belief effectively. It means I'm never surprised to see stuff like this. Because the thing is, they think exactly the way most people do. Just with different starting points.

Moderation on Lemmy is so miss or miss. I once got banned from an "inclusive" comm for sounding "pompous". I have NPD, pompousness is a symptom. And it wasn't a situation where I was causing any problems, a power tripping mod just didn't like my tone of voice.

The summary is a lie. The crisis isn't over it expanding differently in different places. It's that two measurement methods give different results.

So conversely, a drop in activity at a gay bar (which does not deliver to the Pentagon), also means shit is going down?

Can someone explain this?

Yo if your gf doesn't get up to mischief and japes then i dunno what to tell you but that sounds kinda boring ngl

I can see it but it's tiny. Google links suck

All the things I listed fit your definition.

Coral also isn't plants

I disagree. I think anyone can do politics. According to your definition, 10,000 people blocking the streets for a rally isn't politics. A man self immolating in front of the supreme court isn't politics. A scientist appearing before the UN to talk about the dangers of climate change isn't politics. That's silly. It's also a circular definition, given a politician is defined as someone who does politics.

That was to save his life, wasn't it?

You're talking about cancer breakthroughs like they're not politics. Cancer breakthroughs are political. The allocation of resources towards particular kinds of research and its payoff is a contentious subject. The breakthrough serves to justify money that has been spent on cancer research. Although critics may say that there's too much focus on cancer research when other illnesses are more widespread and more pressing. And for that matter, should we be putting more effort into limiting carcinogens in the first place instead of researching cures? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Maybe I'd prefer the government subsidize induction stoves so that I don't have to inhale carcinogenic stove fumes and later get my cancer cured in a hospital. That sure sounds like less stress for the patient, and it has the side benefit of improving climate change. Ultimately cancer breakthroughs are a deeply political subject, with a lot of different conflicting opinions on the subject.

That's news. We already have a name for that kind of content, it's news. What do you want to use the word politics for when we already have the word news?

The word politics is more useful to misogynist gamers and incels than it is to anyone else. You certainly weren't using it for anything productive. I believe we should make the word useless for everyone.

If you know everything is political, then you know you said something silly. Take the correction, move on, and do better next time. Denigrating politics has dangerous consequences.