voldage @ voldage @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

75

Joined

1 yr. ago

Her?

In this economy???

How do you reconcile the understanding of her not being a good person and doing harm to the world with being a Swiftie? That's a genuine question, I find identifying with the group supporting or admiring the person or idea I myself am opposed to on the ideological level hard to imagine. I can understand it being the case if one is defending the lesser evil, as they are coerced to do so by implied existence of the greater evil, but while I'm not well versed in the Swift lore I believe there isn't any evil twin running around that she needs to stop. Unless.

That's not an attack, I believe that being a Swiftie might mean something else than what I understand by this term and I am making a fool out of myself. Still, it does seem to mean supporting what you're opposed to. How do you resolve that contradiction?

And why should we trust you about that, you cop talker

Yeah, it's bad enough that it could happen, the fact they allowed that to happen so easily is far worse.

And honestly speaking I'm not sure myself if "tankie" should apply to China, seeing how most of their bad shit happend internally with the notable exceptions of Taiwan and Hong Kong, which are a stretch. There is a distinctive difference between Russia and China, despite both belonging to same political alliance and both have a dictatorial leaderships. Hating west/USA and loving either of them would make one a campist, but I'm not sure about that qualifyng as tankie. Naturally, most campists support both, so by that definition it would make them tankies.

While your definition does describe tankies as well, I always understood it to be a derogatory term for the general authoritarian communist/pseudo-communist block more so than applying to all national supermacists.

I mean that would mean I believe that they're imperialists supporting the case of white supremacy - I don't think it's too much of a stretch to claim that most USA supported conflicts have the purpose of benefitting the western world, which is based on white supremacy - and most likely are either politicaly illiterate and are unaware (willingly or by ignorance) of what USA is doing, or are sociopaths. They're not tankies by virtue of not being pro post soviet dictatorships, but when it comes to the callousness towards loss of innocent human lives, they're uh... Pretty bad. I'm not making a comparison though, I feel that's like asking which of two shits stinks worse, and we can clearly see that both defecators had varied and distinctive diets.

Comrade Putin thanks you for your contribution, we will do as you suggest and make people illegal.

IQ tests intentionally omit any questions related to empathy, emotional intelligence and creativity, so it can favour people from the top of the pile and act as accurate perdictor of success in ruthless capitalist society. It implicitly promotes lack of those traits in individuals and explicitly promotes the definition of intelligence that's unrelated to them. While you don't get lower scores if you're highly creative or empathetic person, so it's not directly a detrimental for society and can be a useful metric for some cases like specific jobs, it's image as sole measure of intelect is manufactured to promote "specific kind of people", to which group many republican businessmen would belong.

I'm not disagreeing with what you said, just thought I'd expand on that.

I'd say any claims about rape being a justification for genocide have lost their weight after Israelis protested punishment of IDF soldiers for rape of prisoners on the basis of "Palestinians deserving it". There are no moral arguments supporting begining, maintaining or continuing the genocide in Gaza.

While there were many detrimental factors Dems failed to properly address or apparently expected to be treated as positives, the obvious main one was attempting to outflank the GOP from the right. Every attempt to talk negatively about immigration or social issues was bound to result in more people taking Trump seriously instead of thinking Dems will do something. Everything about the illegal immigration rethoric was false, from the numbers to the effects, and Dems knew it - they decided they wanted to pretend this issue exists, so they can also play the right wing populist game. Pro-genocidal rethoric was also something right wing electorate knew Trump would do better, and some people disgusted with that rethoric decided not to vote. Dems wanted to become more right wing, to get that sweet ability to talk complete bullshit about everything and cover their inefficiencies with the mirages of bigotry. They believed their more "reasonable" right wing populist will win instead of wild maniacy like Trump - exactly as they did back in 2016, except this time Kamala had the chance to shape a different image for herself and she refused to do so. They gambled going to get away with moving further right and still getting elected, since Trump should have been very unpopular by all metrics they were capable of imagining. Instead, they gained no votes from the right and lost a fuck ton from the center and the left. Their arrogant and callous campaign sentenced many americans to likely death. They absolutely could have fought with all they had and ceded concessions to their voters instead of donors and "allies" like Israel. They could have went left instead of right, as many of us hoped after the Walz VP pick. Instead they lost, as the worse and less dedicated right wing party of US. They're to blame for what's going to happen next, not some abstract impossible to be pointed with finger voters. Yeah, Harris being a black woman in this deeply conservative society was a detriment to her chances. That was outside of her control, unlike everything else she did or didn't do.

I'll be honest, unless most of the Democratic Party gets purged, it's probably meaningless to vote for them (assuming you even can) in 2028. There couldn't have been easier victory to be had, and they fucked it up. They should have called Trump a pedophile, but were afraid that their own pedophiles like Clinton would get hit with a shrapnell. They could have promised to tax the ultra rich, like Elon Musk down to the fucking ground, but they wanted their money themselves. They didn't want to promise anything big, knowing fully well that no one would believe them with their terrible track record of implementing any meaningful and radical chances, while Trump claimed everything was the fault of immigrants and foreign adversaries and promised radical actions against them. Believing that they wont pull the same bullshit in 2028 is naive, they will refuse to learn anything from this catastrophe, move further right and campaign on "returning to the norm". Fuck them. Let the greedy fucks burn, just as you will because of them. USA needs a third (and fourth, and fifth...) party, and it needs it now instead of in 4 years. Dems should be completely discarded, and I hope the pain you will feel in next 4 years, pain that they could have prevented but chose not to instead, will convince you as well.

Yeah, I'm done, sorry for the rant. Posts casting blame on voters instead of Dems majorly piss me off right now.

I don't think you can check if array of n elements is sorted in O(1), if you skip the check though and just assume it is sorted now (have faith), then the time would be constant, depending on how long you're willing to wait until the miracle happens. As long as MTM (Mean Time to Miracle) is constant, the faithfull miracle sort has O(1) time complexity, even if MTM is infinite. Faithless miracle sort has at best the complexity of the algorithm that checks if the array is sorted.

Technically you can to down to O(0) if you assume all array are always sorted.

don't worry guys I'm keeping track of it it's moving very fast but oh fuck sorry guys my bad

lets pretend we never spoke and that there is some deep trans lore regarding Jar Jar that is better left unknown instead

Okay I want to know why was a Jar Jar meme posted specifically to blahaj.zone. Give me the lore.

Only thing I can promise you with somewhat high degree of certainty is that you won't stay that way for long. 2-3 years tops.

I believe that it's much less about profits and much more about power. Being unbeliveably wealthy in a world where everyone have their every need satisfied is less favourable for a megalomaniac than being believeably wealthy in a world where everyone is desperate. People rarely desire expensive jewelery or other (relative) luxuries for their own satisfaction, usually it's used to signify wealth and show power. What use would those extremely rich psychopaths have for their money if there was no human black market to buy a child sex slave from? Where would they get their dose of praise and submission if no one desperately wished to change their dire living conditions and was willing to licktheir boots for that chance? I think capitalism was designed specifically for this purpose, and with class divide growing ever wider, it fulfills it excellently.

As we well know all women and men in history that lived together with someone of the same gender were just friends. There are many historical records in which esteemed historians depicted the factual truth of deep friendships. Luckily for the rest of us, those noble seers always knew all context required and bore no prejudices towards anything whatsoever. That is a model cucumber. It even tastes like one.

While true and valid, also remember that your community can be a problem, or you might be suffering from systemic issues. Not all issues stem from individuals, and some are impossible to solve on the personal level. If you find yourself in the cult, for example, walking away is probably the best you could do, despite the scorn of the community.

Women are a known counter against moderate politics being reasonable to poke at