lmmarsano @ lmmarsano @lemmynsfw.com

Posts

0

Comments

419

Joined

7 mo. ago

How do you control the course of a failing rocket? Are you claiming such misdesign is impossible?

The fact remains that unlike with words, a physical potential of death & injury exists in what is technically a missile of significant weight carrying enough explosive substance to escape orbit. The difference between non-0 and 0 possibility of death/injury.

Unless magic exists, words are incapable. Do you claim magic exists? How do mere words cause death without the personal responsibility of something else culpably choosing to take several steps of its own? Or are you arguing the sight of words have deranged you into a mindless killer? If so, maybe you're the real threat.

Seems like you're arguing society is dangerous to life: I agree. That's not a valid argument against words, though.

Again, total lack of perspective & sense.

Not in favor of helping dumbass humans no matter who they are. Humans are not endangered. Humans are ruining the planet. And we have all these other species on the planet that need saving, so why are we saving those who want out?

If someone wants to kill themselves, some empty, token gesture won't stop them. It does, however, give everyone else a smug sense of satisfaction that they're "doing something" by expressing "appropriate outrage" when those tokens are absent, and plenty of people who've attempted suicide seem to think the heightened "awareness" & "sensitivity" of recent years is hollow virtue signaling. Systematic reviews bear out the ineffectiveness of crisis hotlines, so they're not popularly touted for effectiveness.

If someone really wants to kill themselves, I think that's ultimately their choice, and we should respect it & be grateful.

Seems more like a dumbass people problem.

Not sure where everyone gets vegan from this. I'm sensing more neurological dysfunction.

Anyone curious what this king of comedy considers funny?

experience empathy

Is there some term for the weaponization of empathy in a shitty argument? That word gets overused. Whenever I see it come up, it's almost always a shitty argument. Definitely not the trump card they treat it as.

reading comprehension: none

Don't know, man: kinda think the potential loss of life from a failing rocket crashing into people matters somewhat more than words. Maybe?

Musk himself seems to abhor guardrails generally—except in cases where guardrails help him personally—preferring to hurriedly ship products, rapid unscheduled disassemblies be damned. That may be fine for an uncrewed rocket, but X has hundreds of millions of users aboard.

• Grok: writes embarrassing words.
• Rockets: can weigh hundreds of metric tons, carry explosive chemicals, can crash into populated areas resulting in loss of life.

In this discourse, anyone else find a broken sense of proportion & consequences at stake?

Ted Cruz is a dick, but really, what is he actually going to accomplish by being there?

Performative photo op everything to shit, probably.

1. image of text: there's this cool alternative called text that doesn't break the web or accessibility. linking to source & quoting text makes an altogether better web for everyone.
2. dictionary definition: not an official, legal definition.

Maybe unlearn that or learn to throw it back?

Letting the other camp "own" signs like fake news, 👌🏼, or facts over feelings is basically cooperating with them & validating whatever they decide those signs mean for the rest of us. Yet the literal meaning of those words (& signs) can serve anyone. Language can be creative, no?

Instead of ceding to them like a bunch of feeble losers (and implying we only argue with feelings), maybe we should reappropriate what was given, stir confusion, apply some creativity to make those signs serve us against the "dickwads" we oppose?

That purity mentality of recoiling from anything "tainted" by those we oppose isn't useful. It's better to restore, redeem, create.

The text editor has

• a link to formatting help
• a button to convert highlighted text to lists.

Problem? Seems as good a way as any to say conflicting feelings can go suck a dick when they need to reconcile with these facts over here. Dumb to get peeved over that.

Bans are rarely justified. Strong emotions aren't a good reason to ban much. If there are minimally invasive alternatives, and we can let others be, that's typically better.

Emotions aren't a good reason for anything, really. I distrust feelings & prefer to understand & make sense of them before I allow myself to indulge them in myself or others.

Judgement of right & wrong can operate on reason, and it's better that it does. If someone is (justifiably) upset over a wrong, then a wrong exists, and knowing that suffices & is better than feeling it.

No, not in general: too much unjustified outrage & self-absorbed idiocy in the world over unreasonable shit. Karens, bigots, culture warriors, pearl clutchers, holy wars. Too many people need to cool it & chill the fuck out.

There are also legitimate differences in the world, and we need to respect liberties to dissent & differ.

They need to be justifiably upset. Only then is it understandable. However, getting upset over it is not generally a good move: it may lead to poor decisions. Better to stay collected, acknowledge the problem, apply fair judgement to correct the matter.

lemmy?

Anything independent of human convention (like the rest of nature) isn't. Neither is anything a priori (like logic).

There's no confusion. I was merely adding that they're all social constructs. (As real as money.)

Partly inspired by socks.

Social currency & sanctimonious displays to gain it: also a social construct.