soumerd_retardataire @ soumerd_retardataire @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

32

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm trying to write something interesting, you're not 👎
It's easy to write something that everyone will agree with, but it's less useful/interesting i.m.h.o.
Yeah, among the affirmations that i knew would displeased the crowd in my last comment, Elon Musk is freaking awesome, better than all of you combined. You'll probably have difficulties to find where you disagree with the mainstream medias or the Lemmy users/mindhive(, try it, have you found at least one disagreement ?), and not even ask yourself why you don't have real/solid reasons to hate better people than you, sick.
Nobody will change their mind through insults or mod censorship, having the mass behind you doesn't mean you're right if you're unable to argue(, which, as you'll convince yourself, you could easily do but don't want to, don't feed the troll or w/e). Being a bunch of haters is one thing, but doing so without solid arguments is another, don't be surprised that sheeple is a word, we've simply seen the level of your (non-)argumentation online(, often inexistent, or a 1000 times worse than in newspapers, even if, beyond being recruited/fired by their capitalists owners, journalists have to suck since they usually have to write multiples(!) articles/day, not one per week or even month, so it's unavoidable).

It's much more so the work you do that's important, not the idea itself.

Yes and no, i'm not talking about technicians(, even though in a team of technicians there's still some persons better than the average), but about scientists emiting theories, there's a reason why theorems or units of measures have the name of a person, and the book cited in the selftext is another justification : some scientists are known in their field for being important(, some are important/known mostly because of their positions, but others because of their groundbreaking ideas/discoveries).
But sure, it's a teamwork, especially when putting theory into practice.

As for the other argument, i don't want to have someone good at that kind of performance, i'm not talking about entertainment but about someone unknown and passionate about h.er.is field of study, who cares if s.he is in front of the camera for the first&last time of h.er.is life, it could eventually be prepared beforehand, but i'm not talking about the guests invited by Lex Friedman, such as Neil deGrasse Tyson or other popularizers/showmen, they may be scientists as well but i wasn't talking about them(, some emissions search&invite such people but there's only a few).

As i said it's natural that we're choosing entertainment over, e.g., studying manuals after work, it's not a real criticism but it'll hopefully change one day(, retrieving the level of the aristocrats of the past, but for everyone this time), which shouldn't be difficult since almost everyone wants to be better/more, just that life usually seems too 'time-consuming'&short for that.

(i've also realized today that my favorite people, mostly Raphaël Enthoven(, i'd never reach his level in a century, really glad that there's at least one person like him,) and Étienne Chouard, but also Idriss Aberkane and kinda François Asselineau, and clearly Elon Musk as well, are all hated by the population(, or at least the french lemmy instance), of course we'll ignore God, hate other countries, and belittle our superior ancestors(, the least writing of the past is still written in a better way than the best conversation on Lemmy), i'm feeling at odd, there's either a problem with me or with society and it's kinda annoying sometimes, and the so-called "reasons" are so absurd, similarly to how Lemmy will hate Trump on, e.g., him saying that some immigrants ate pets or any other argument really, for most people we've been told to hate even if we've never accomplished anything ourselves, we don't even realize the problem with our absence of any real/solid argument, people in real life are way better than online, perhaps because we don't really care about making efforts online since it'll be forever lost to time, it's not a reflection of society)

I personally prefer a picture because most softwares for browsing Lemmy require to load the whole post in order to read the selftext, but agree with your arguments/explanations, so if that ever happens again i'll try not to forget to accompany the picture with a transcript.
Thank you very much for such an answer/explanation.

Oh, ok, thanks for the explanation, their software usually has an OCR feature since we can nowadays easily read much harder pictures than this one though, otherwise they wouldn't be able to browse most social medias. Seems like this recommendation is 10 years too old if i'm not mistaken.
Even better : since a description of the scenery would be more useful to them for some memes/pictures, but more difficult to do for the o.p., i don't think it'll be long until free softwares offer them a description of pictures in their favorite style of description(, since, after all, large language models like ChatGPT can already do this).

It'd have been easy for me to copy-paste the text in the selftext, i'll try to remember this if there's a next time and thus interpret this rule as "no picture unless accompanied with a transcript", unless i'm wrong in this interpretation.
Thanks again for this information.

Still, some are closer to the source of these ideas than others, think about awards attributed to individuals for example. And if our "idols" are singers, actors, politicians, or youtubers, then we'll produce singers, actors, politicians, or youtubers. Why don't we have more emissions that will interview each week a researcher on h.er.is studies ? Just that we'll have the population we deserve, that's all.
Also, they bring everything but the money goes to the investors(, not really what Ayn Rand claimed).
And we're using objects everyday without understanding how they work.
For now, we're working all day and spend our free time entertaining ourselves and spending time with our family, i'd certainly be wrong to judge, but if our time ever gets liberated(, e.g., with machines, longevity, ...), then i just hope that our civilization will seek a higher purpose than entertainment 🤷.

What a weird rule, do you know why it exists ?
What should i have done to post this information then ?

You're doubting that he's defending free speech, it's better than if you accused his policy of being too excessively libertarian by allowing people you'd like to censor.
If you're talking about these accounts they've been reinstated, and shame on you(r short-sightedness) for criticising him(, and other social media owners,) instead of the pressure from governments, that you've accepted congrats, Meta may or not be happy to comply, but our governments don't protect us from censorship it's the contrary, yay. Yes, E.Musk opposes this otherwise he wouldn't be targeted.

Yeah, now people don't like Musk, freedom of speech, and expect the government to make laws on hate speech or misinformation, such a weird timeline, i agree with you fellow Musk lover 💪❤️

Our medias and politicians, i'm from Lemmygrad on my main account if my personal opinion ever mattered.
But we(sterners) have double standards.

I admitted my formulation was poorly written here

If i may, here's an other excerpt from C.Johnstone who's saying that even admitting this double standard between civilians and terrorists isn't enough for us to currently support Israel/westerners :

No man, we care much more about deaths in the west than outside of it, e.g. in the u.s.a. instead of Iraq, or Israel instead of Palestine, partly because we divide between supposedly good western civilians and evil terrorists with human shields, tsk.
5.4 million people have died in Congo between 1998 and 2008, wouldn't we have cared much more if they were westerners ? Because i never heard of that before, and the examples aren't lacking, it only depends if they're allies or enemies. And how many die because of our selfish/nationalistic neo-colonialism ?

You're absolutely right, the truthfulness of this sentence doesn't teach us that someone is tribalistic by assuming it happened locally.

It's only my assumption that an answer to "in the Middle-East" would be "Ah ? Ok, i was afraid for a while(, i thought it was on our side)" that made me thought that. I understand that it was received as an unfair accusation yet i included myself in this and found this assumption more interesting by its truthfulness.

As i wrote in the selftext :

Thanks for asking !

I'll take more time tomorrow to answer in more depth(, even if only for me[, edit : probably not in the end, unless you're willing to have a discussion on this topic, i'd prefer to receive counter-arguments or engage in a conversation before developing this]), but for now i can quickly say that this set of rules/conditions won't be defined by a single person(, much less myself), as i see it it would take at least 25 years to build, and 5 years before the first (theoretical )experimentations. It'd be, after all, one of the most important thing that humanity could do.
This disapproval of other values can easily be solved through propaganda, we naturally aspire to peace and thinking that our side is better than the other doesn't imply we need to wage war against the "inferior ideologies", even for their own good, we should aim to change them only through the proximity of our example(, if they accept such proximity).
An obstacle i can see is our leaders, they'll think that they have to act for more supremacy while they still have time(, or continue with neo-colonialism to prolong it), and may honestly believe that the pax americana is desirable, or at least preferable to the alternative of an "anarchic" world. They won't immediately believe that we could make rules that can't be broken, such that "showing kindess" won't turn up against us in the end.
Among many other goals behind the experimentation of such rules, we'll have to think of every possible way to break these rules/conditions, and devise the most effective counter-measures ever thought of, i don't see any other way. A world army is an example of condition(, ~only used for humanitarian reasons), and has the advantage of pointing out the need to have trust in such set of rules/conditions, including the promise to be allowed as much diversity as possible(, as long as it doesn't break the unity).
The fear of a tyrannical world government forbidding diversity is also a reason for why such set of rules shouldn't be able to be corrupted, such decision shouldn't be taken lightly anyway, 25 years of preparation&testing seems long but may be too short, yet i don't see a better way, and the status quo of states fearing for their security isn't desirable(, i mean, i don't think you realize how many wars&destruction we caused, in the name of our vaguely defined interests or whatever, we could do better if we want to( let go of hegemony)).
If we ever plan to be an interplanetary species then it'd be great to have solved the problem of war without uniformity/hegemony before that.
There're certainly other problems to tackle, do you have one in mind ?

• We can harmoniously be united in diversity ;
• We can be united without diversity ;
• Or we can be disunited in diversity.

I obviously choose the first option, you'll probably agree with me, but our western leaders somehow prefer the second one, and they're the ones with the power to improve things.

Then we agree 👍

That's a topic i love and i don't often have the possibility to see someone not thinking it is possible(, i've never met someone arguing that it is not desirable).
If you pointed at our arrogant/selfish desire to be "on top" of the other, then my answer would be to explain why everyone would gain and be more powerful if we're united, and it must be lonely at the top, with only one culture, if we have friendly countries who are really different in many domains then it's better to be friends with equals, we have to think of infallible measures against treason but that's not impossible.

And what would i gain by trolling(, in the sense of not engaging in a debate but simply responding by mocking the other ?). Here's the context of the sentence i read(, it's more that we don't care about bombs falling on supposedly evil people who deserve it(, she knows that but since the victims are civilians who can't be all considered guilty/"evil" she's not wrong)) :

Tribes or nationalism, what's the difference except perhaps size ?
I'm just explaining why i saw an interest in this sentence.

And if it's a commentary on human nature, then we're fucked, i like the current meaning of being humane. I know we're capable of the best, we're simply not perfect and must improve, abandoning tribalism/nationalism and helping each other has been asked for millenias and it may happen but i hope it won't be at the cost of our diversity.

Don't move the goalposts. You didn't say we don't. You said we aren't able. We absolutely are.

Oh, i agree then, except in the case of apology of terrorism/enemies.

And indeed Palestine is easy( tell that to our medias and governments though), but i'd be interested if you know of a counter-example to our double standards(, at least once we're interested in a conflict, it's at this moment that we attribute a range of good and evil people, and are disinterested in the fate of the supposedly evil ones).

And the initial thread was more, since it is showerthoughts, that i haven't thought of things that way, it is indeed a true statement, and more because of tribalism than the way language work, but w/e if i was wrong(, and one option doesn't exclude the other anyway).

What i meant in my previous comment didn't took into account the propaganda about other humans being evil, the logic was that once you refuse to kill a non-human it's easier to refuse killing a human, and once you have non-humans it's easier to accept the thought of having human slaves.
And it has to be sincere, i believe non-humans to be better than us, in enough ways for me to sincerely admire them.
But we may indeed still hate other humans because they're evil and we're liberating their population, or ourselves, yet every conflict could have been avoided if both sides agreed to unite in diversity, i don't see an exception to this rule. And we're still nowadays attributing the roles of good//evil instead of seeking solutions to please both sides(, usually because the strongest side, very often the west, refuses to change or make concessions).
It's not that world peace is difficult, but that our refusal of unity is difficult to overturn, we(sterners) are the f*cking prime wagers of death&destruction, didn't know that ten years ago.

Thanks, because that's how we should behave, not only towards humans but non-humans as well(, and it's easier to care about humans as a whole once you care about non-humans b.t.w.).