nyamlae @ nyamlae @lemmy.world

བོད་རྒྱལ་ལོ།

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

77

Joined

2 yr. ago

Why do you think it's superior?

Oh thanks, I'm cured! /s

Desperately clinging to the illusion that USA good

You are either being dishonest or have bad reading comprehension. The OP clearly labels Trump as part of the problem, alongside Netanyahu and Khameini. They also blame Israel for escalating with Iran when talks were still ongoing. They are not saying what you claim they are.

Is this ChatGPT o3-pro?

These are not "stages", these are just different activities. Lots of people don't have kids, but this doesn't make them at a lower "stage". Not everyone wants to climb some kind of career ladder, nor does everyone respect those who do. Not everyone gets married, nor does everyone even care about marriage. People live differently -- they do not progress through stages.

I mean, we're also using social media but can still recognize that she's delusional. There's a lot of different factors contributing to people's delusions.

the same stage of life as I am

I would say they are living the same type of life as you, not the same stage. Life doesn't have stages once you're an adult. There are just common activities, and nothing more.

That's wonderful, I'm happy for you. I hope you ignore the haters :)

These comments are crazy lol.

The idea of "shallowness" is stupid. It's a normal part of human attraction to prefer people that are visually attractive, so it's unusual when people ignore that and take conventionally unattractive partners.

It's similar to having a partner who's kind of an asshole. Why would you do that? Cuz they're hot? It's just as odd and one-sided in the reverse.

Now, if you just find conventionally unattractive people to be attractive, then that's another story -- that would show that you're not making excuses for ignoring basic elements of human attraction.

Also, if you truly don't value physical attractiveness to the degree that other people do, and are not just saying that to cope with having a less beautiful partner, then that's totally fair. People are just commenting on it because for most people, physical beauty is a core part of attraction, and ignoring that fact is a big sign of denial and deeper unhappiness. But if that doesn't apply to you, then rock on.

How do we improve society, if all societies are equal? It's nonsense!!!

By evaluating individual stats, not entire societies, and by letting societies determine what they value.

No those are stats EVERYBODY should value

You don't need to share other people's values. But you have no right to determine what other people should value. Big colonizer energy from you.

How would you tally up the score of "development"?

If the score depends, essentially, on racist ideas of how human societies should look, valorizing old people who can read as the epitome of human achievement, then I think it should be dismissed.

And more than that, I think the entire game of defining a single consolidated "development score" is laughable at best. We can measure stats individually, and consider them in their own right. Any attempt to weight the individual scores to contribute to a total score is going to depend heavily on the judge's personal values. There is no value-neutral way to do it.

You may feel strongly that certain cultures are more developed than others, but that is based on the stats that you value. Even if you base it on data in some way, you are basing it on the data that states have bothered to gather, which almost always captures metrics that align with their priorities and views.

One obvious measure would be literacy, another would be life expectancy.

The idea that literacy and life-expectancy are signs of a more "developed" country is essentially just racist colonialist propaganda.

Many cultures worldwide have traditionally transmitted knowledge orally, and their societies were built around this, with lots of in-person meetings to disseminate information. If a person speaks their traditional language and is well-versed in their traditional culture, but does not read or write (because they don't need to), then by the standard of literacy they will be deemed as less "developed" than some 4-chan troglodyte.

Likewise, life expectancy past a certain age is kind of a ridiculous metric. People seriously believe that the longer you can stay geriatric, the more "developed" your country is.

Meanwhile, metrics like knowledge of botanical medicine or percentage of communal land ownership are often left out of these scoreboards of "development". Things that can materially improve people's lives are only seen as having value when non-Indigenous people do them. It is racism through and through.

Actually, looking at history, no language will survive. Modern English is only 400 years old. >In a few hundred years, all languages will be very different from what they are now. Different enough to be considered a different language. It is normal.

This is a completely different process than what's outlined in the article. The article is about outright language death, like if Old English had died so that it never became Modern English.

Language change is normal. Language death is, in our world, largely a result of colonialism, racism, and anti-Indigenous policies.

I don't get why people are up in arms over lost languages or lost cultures, unless of course if it's due to genocide.

Which it often is, as I'm sure you know. We are in an awful situation for Indigenous languages.

Regarding culture, people don't lose their culture in general, they adopt other cultures over time.

These are the same thing. People don't just lose their culture and become cultureless. They lose their culture as they adopt another culture, but this process is largely driven by colonialism.

Just like people have evolved biologically over time, so do we also evolve culturally, but the cultural evolution is much much faster.

"Evolve"? Do you think European culture is superior to Indigenous cultures? We are destroying the planet in record time, and you are talking about "cultural evolution"? This is the language of 19th century racists who were blind to the nuances of culture. Different cultures are different ways of being in the world, each with its own pros and cons.

And it's fucking great that cultures evolve, because that's the way to get rid of religion and other traits of our cultures that are detrimental to in general.

Unfortunately, the cultures that have replaced Indigenous cultures around the world have largely been bigoted Christian cultures. Language loss is not caused by cultures becoming healthier -- it is caused by unhealthy cultures killing other cultures.

Gurl the world's population has been growing for hundreds of years and is still growing 🤦‍♂️ It is expected to peak at around 10 billion people.

The loss of human languages is a direct result of colonialism + nationalism, which go hand in hand. People that want to unite a region under one government push for only a single language to be used in that region. Italy and China are prominent examples of this. The natural linguistic diversity of the region is decimated to grow a monoculture.

Language loss is largely unrelated to people dying. Indigenous people live on, just without their languages, as they adopt the languages of their colonizers. This is very common across the world.

When a language dies in a community, the transmission of that community's culture is heavily impacted. Monolingual elders can no longer communicate (or communicate well) with younger generations, and the words in other languages do not capture the same nuances and connections as the words in their native language. The death of a language quickens the death of a culture, and that in turn quickens the death of indigenous knowledge systems.

The different languages of humanity -- our different ways of speaking, thinking, and being human -- are treasures. They show us other ways of treating each other, other ways of organizing society, other ways of experiencing beauty and fear and anger. They show us that the world is broader than our narrow lens. We can never really escape the lens of our native language and culture, but we can step out of it for a while. And in doing so, we gain a greater perspective on what it means to be human.

Why is the government mandating how many applications you submit? Was this in order to be eligible for unemployment pay?

What led you to change your views?

Iconic.

A lot of people are saying to learn to cook, but things aren't that simple. Many people know how to cook perfectly well but order out anyway, either because they're busy or because they have mental health conditions that make cooking incredibly stressful.

We need to change our economic system so that CEO bonuses aren't inflating the prices of people's food. This would make it easier for people to eat out more often if they feel they need to. It shouldn't break the bank to get simple meals at a restaurant.

Let's stop debating the details of a stupid plan. Trump deserves total, unreserved opposition, not submissive "well, actually..."s.