L/nerd @ the_best_nerd @lemmy.blahaj.zone

she/they

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

37

Joined

2 yr. ago

ain't no fucking way this fella's calling china and north korea resistance to the bourgeoisie and imperialism

vigilante justice is bad because you are enforcing a personal rule of law. the uhc ceo was enforcing many of his own rules through the company's own treatment of claims and its effects on governing entities. there was no justice, simply a warning that noone is less mortal than the people they commodify.

looks ai generated

If piracy was stealing I would do it even more

it's nsfw bc i wouldn't want a coworker or my boss to see this on my screen

So like. To be clear. It's not the ongoing genocide conducted by Israel you're worried about, but the single bombardment they've received? Like, I don't like people dying to begin with, but. Come on.

That would be because a large amount of artifacts were stolen. The comment is referring to all of the artifacts within that large category of theirs. Do you think that all those countries that Britain pillaged and colonized just gave them those artifacts as a token of friendship?

Then why did you call that take braindead? They didn't say that all of Britain's exhibits are for stolen artifacts, just how their biggest exhibits are the stolen ones.

where did you learn arm fusion spell

they're not stolen because internet meme, they're stolen because many of those artifacts are literally taken by colonists who have taken the land.

Have you ever seen boobs in real life?

believing yourself immune to suggestion is one of the greatest vulnerabilities against suggestion tbh

...is that it's a capitalism metaphor?

...maybe freud was right.

Land

Israel

Solving our mental health problem won't prevent billionaires from existing.

Didn't say it would. I have no idea where you pulled this from.

Making excuses for billionaires isn't a mental health issue, it's an intelligence issue.

I alsi wasn't giving any slack to billionaires. I also have no idea where you pulled this from.

Both of the above statements from you imply you either didn't read my comment or understand what it said, primarily because they feel like arguments intended for an entirely different comment. Please tell me how I can best rephrase it if I communicated my ideas unclearly at all.

Also, please refer me to the part of the DSM-5 where it lists "sociopath" as a possible diagnosis.

Funnily enough, empathy doesn't always apply to all other people! Many often learn to only utilize their empathy to gain social advantages by leveraging an understanding of others, or practice selective empathy in that they have functioning, typical, empathy - just only within their bubble. It's why some of them get uncomfortable when they're forced to perceive poor people in a more humanizing way - they have empathy, they're just choosing not utilize it in a way that benefits larger society. I feel I should also point out that a number of people fit the qualifications for being considered low-empathy, but are regarded as leading admirable lives by otherwise choosing to be good to their fellow human beings - James H Fallon comes to mind.

I'm not suggesting solving all our mental health problems will stop billionaires from existing (though in truth, class disparity creating the stressors it does would definitely make stopping billionaires help population mental health), nor am I suggesting that billionaires should get any sort of excuse. I am pointing out how people in abusive class positions (i.e. billionaires) can still be high-empathy people, and how sociopath literally isn't a diagnosis anymore. I believe you are having a reading comprehension issue.

"Sociopath" isn't even an official diagnosis anymore, and certain abusable positions also get noted for their tendency to have high-empathy people working in them - the levels of empathy, in the end, only determine the way the abuse comes through. Empathy is a tool like any other, and trying to insist that it's a thing that can define the goodness of a person is as absurd as any of the other times people have tried to associate a particular feature with some kind of moral position - not to mention how it only ends up harming marginalized demographics. The wealthy and powerful are not going to care if you deem them low-empathy monsters, but some people around you may feel less safe knowing that you associate low-empathy with evil.