galanthus @ galanthus @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

191

Joined

11 mo. ago

Ok thanks for the reply. When you said you had aphantasia and no inner monologue I thought you were a philosiphical zombie. I guess I was wrong, but there is no way to know I suppose.

That's interesting, I myself can sometimes think without a monologue. I did it just now, and I am not sure if I do not use words, but I do not actually hear them, yet I know the thoughts are there somehow. It often happens on its own when I have a lot of thoughts at the same time or think really fast about something.

But usually I talk to myself in my head, this is either a monologue or a sort of dialogue, and I often tell myself to shut up out loud when no one is around. I also imagine music pretty accurately, and I can enjoy it this way,. I play by ear.

I am sorry for the questions, this is really interesting.

What about maths? How do you do geometry? Do you have to have a drawing or can you manage without it? How do you understand geometry if you can't see it's objects?

And what happens when you read a description of something? Do you just have an idea of what it is, because if so, it seems to me that some of the value of literature will be lost. Do you actually feel anything when you read a description of something beautiful, for instance?

Interestingly enough, silent reading was historically uncommon due to the fact that literature was less common than it is now and, most importantly, the lack of separation between words.

The ability to read silently was considered very unusual.

Homophobe.

Déjà-vu.

Wow. Unusal, but I suppose you can do everything at the same time.

And what is down the ballot? Local governors? You don't just vote for the president in the presidential election?

I thought this was film. I was so scared lmao.

You know, they had elections in the soviet union. And you had two options, vote for the candidate(there was only one) and spoil the ballot(not an official option, clearly).

If enough people spoiled the ballot, a new candidate could be indroduced, but this is infrequent and irrelevant.

Riddle me this, why have elections if you have only one candidate on the ballot? What is the point of having mock elections in dictatorships, with fake numbers?

No, I want all that to happen so that I can feel good about myself for not voting.

The government was legitimate then, obviously. Why would you apply our modern view of the matter to that time? It is irrelevant.

I see your point, but I should say that I agree that it would be better for you to have Harriss than Trump. However, that does not mean you should have voted for her. Dependending on the state you are in, your vote either has no effect on the election at all, or it has only a very very very small chance to decide it. And for as long as it does not decide it it is irrelevant. So even if the benefit of not voting is very small, like keeping your moral integrity or embodying democratic principles or not wasting your time, it is still worth it.

Modern states derive their legitimiacy from the will of the people, so an election with low turnout is less legitimate than an election with higher turnout. This can be noticable when a very small amount of people votes. This is why they repeat that you have to vote, no matter for whom, this pro-voting propaganda is meant to legitimise the government.

It is you who are wrong about my position. Democracy is not getting what you want, it is the government following the will of the majority, which it does not because the democratic party has been supporting a largely unpopular genocide, and if you are against it, you have no way to have your view(which is popular) represented in the political system. The democrats don't give a shit what their voters want, they will vote for them anyway, for as long as they hate the other party more. But if the majority of people hates both parties/candidates, and votes for the one they hate less, this is not democracy.

Also, the democratic party sucks for many reasons, not just the recent Palestine development.

And if I was a US citizen and I did not vote, or voted for Trump, what would change? I will tell you what, nothing. You can vote for whomever you want, and still only one candidate will win, and your vote will likely not matter even if you live in a swing state but you probably don't, so it doesn't matter at all. You make it sound like by abstaining you elect Trump, but if your vote is not decisive, it does not have a negative impact on others. So indulging my ego would do no harm. But it would delegitimise the system I am opposed to.

You are complaining about the neo-colonial regime of the US. I am not certain how legitimising the party that supports it is going to change anything in that regard, but please, enlighten me.

Every vote is a vote for the system, it does not matter whether you vote for Trump or not. If you love the right-wing democratic party and don't want anti-imperialist, leftist and even centre-left views present in your political system, please, do not do anything and just vote for whatever mediocre politician the party appoints while disregarding the popular will. But stop complaining about people that actually want their views represented.

Democracy does not just arise naturally, it has to be maintained. You have to stand your ground, demand what is rightfully yours. If you do not even try to do that, and just defer to the political system, you do not understand what it takes to have a democracy.

Why would anyone vote for a party that they are opposed to ideologically?

Edit: I do understand why, of course, I just diapprove.

Not voting delegitimises the government and puts pressure on the political system. The minor benefits of that are not countered by any drawbacks if you are in the vast majority of states that are not swing states.

But my main point is: you have to develop a solid ideological viewpoint and act on it if you actually want your voice to be represented. If you just vote for the parties that you do not agree with because you feel like you have to you are actually not doing your "democraric duty" and instead are legitimising the government that does not represent your desires, thusly eroding democracy.

You can say, that if a lot of people thought this way and voted for, say, Jill Stein, or not at all, the Democrats would not win. To that I would say, why would I want them to win if I do not agree with their politics? But most importantly, if people were actually willing to stand their ground and at least try to hold politicians accountable and fight for political representation(of their views) you would not have the political fiasco you have now in the first place.

God, the US would collapse as a country. It runs a huge deficit, what would it be without the dollar?

You perform your civic duty by not voting in the same way as you would by voting.

But what does that have to do with physics? I know some people that know next to nothing about physics, and yet they would not expect anyone to make such a jump. Hell, before modern physics, and even before aristotle and the pre-socratics people had some clue about what is and is not possible to do.

I am talking about physics as a science, and honestly, the theories we are currently employing are not really compatible stylistically and thematically with DnD. Even Newtonian mechanics isn't, the world(s) of DnD have wizards who do science and I would say they are mostly inspired by the pre-modern physics and philosophy than anything, so why ruin the atmosphere with modern physics?