What’s a smog?
What’s a smog?
It not a massive gap like that, but it’s tall enough and far enough away that 99.9% of people who try, fall.
I am not following what you mean by “this” when you’re asking about what I’m advocating.
In explicit terms, my understanding is that Leninists and similar ideologies believe that humanity is in its capitalist phase, and that the next phase is communism. That is what I mean when I say that they believe a revolution in the US is good for humanity.
I don’t feel good about the impact of the US being dismantled, nor do I feel good about any western nation being dismantled. I don’t think anyone has a full clue what the US collapsing would cause, but I think it would cause catastophe. I am not advocating dismantling, if that’s what you think.
I expect downvotes, but I figure thinking out loud about online discourse can be healthy to the general community and so I’m gonna do so.
The real issue here is not the fate of Gaza, I think. I believe that in reality, your failure is choosing not to be apart of the revolution that aims to dismantle the US government - the only way these groups view Gaza has any chance of being saved (by “this group” I’m referring to the condemners, who I suspect are Leninists and similar idealogues). Saying this openly is currently outside of the Overton window in the US still, since a majority Americans are uninterested in actually fighting and dying for a new system. Instead, they just imply it, or condemn stances that constrain to the status quo.
IMO, Such a revolution would need to happen within Israel for it to halt the genocide, and a revolution in US would fail to impact the Israeli government quickly enough to actually save Gaza.
Your individual likelihood of becoming fodder against police, and eventually the US military itself, is also ignored. The revolution itself is for the greater good of mankind in their eyes, and thus your life by itself is inconsequential.
Probably should be directly shutting down this call for joining the revolution rather than trying to appeal to reason - or explicitly state how you’re participating.
Overall, I think that the holy week riots demonstrated how effective violent protest can be and that something like that happening again could be good for the US. I’m aware how extreme that statement will seem to some, but the fact that the fair housing act was passed in a week should really show just how effective that kind of violent action can be, and that we shouldn’t rule it out.
At the same time though, I understand that many leftists currently are doing what they can to leverage the system to their advantage. This is not out of indoctrination, IMO, but because they have a respect for the lives of those immediately around them - they understand the alternative is sending a large portion of those around them to their die for a cause and they can’t conscionably do that. I couldn’t do that either, and I’m gonna respect how they’re operating currently and try to help how I am able.
Sacrilinux - or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, sacrilege + Lin…
It could in fact depict any forum, IRC, or organized online community.
Are we talking anarcho-capitalist, anarchist, or some third option? Because since Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, the meaning in the US has been a bit shakey.
For an idea of US libertarians, most people think of "A Libertarian Walks into a Bear"
I like “xitter” (pronounced ‘shitter’)
Stop watching WWE with them. They’re clearly imitating an pile driver elbow drop from the top of Hell in a Cell. /s
Edit: wow I really bungled that one. Elbow drop, not piledriver.
Next Western Old Baroque Harp Mix
Ah yes, biblical genders: the penetrator and the penetrated.
The outrage is more that a label is being applied to them. They want it to be ‘women’ and ‘trans women’, where only ‘non-normal’ identities get a label.
The application of ‘cis’ bothers conservatives because it changes the narrative, from people who identify as their assigned sex being ‘the default’, into cis people just another state of identity with no more significance than the others.
Sure you can.
You could also survive a serial killer in a similar way.
“Here’s your latte, Sir.”
But also, you could take a small shark.
Hierarchy, being a chain of command in which an individual above, privvy to more information, gives you instructions to follow. This includes military organizations, but is just as applicable to a doctor-patient relationship.
Coercion, meaning the threat of retaliation, through physical force, revoking of freedoms or privileges, or denial of resources.
Voluntary, meaning of one’s own means, with no coercion or realization of coercion, with the clear option to opt out being present whenever possible.
This does not leave things in question, I believe. Currently, we all operate within hierarchies at work with explicit threats of destitution being held over our heads, through the denial of currency. Meanwhile, there is no coercion from your physician despite it still being hierarchical in nature, because the hierarchy is entirely based on trust and is voluntary.
I think that is a misreading of why moral codes come into being, and I am not trying to preach moralism.
Moral codes are not universal truths, but instead rules of engagement for maintaining order within a system, and they exist within every social scope, though their level of detail tends to decay as the scope becomes more interpersonal. They’re not really a tool of the state, but instead just a human tool. The state just codifies its own and disseminates it into the social collectives it rules.
My statement above is a moral observation about political morality within the US, and which I view is generally a useful rule within any democratic political system (I am referring to systems which have a structure and voting system associated with democratic processes, not necessarily ideal or actual democracies).
I am also not saying that this moral code is necessarily good for us or the system itself at any given moment, but stating why this moral code exists in the first place, and why anyone who is apart of our system and wants that system to survive (whether that be for avoiding personal turmoil or political ideology) will continue to condemn assassination attempts from any side.
By weighing all violence as immoral you are not ruling it out completely. You make it a last-resort, where you avoid one great injustice with a lesser injustice - a lesser injustice which you still face consequences for.
The alternative is morally sanctifying some murders, which leads to ‘morally justified’ murders being done by all political sides (since they each view themselves as ‘the moral ones’), and which eventually gets twisted into the party in power murdering their opponents with impunity because it’s ‘morally justified’.
There were times when individuals did not work for someone higher than them on a pecking order, though that model is physically not possible in an industrial society, I think.
That being said, hierarchies can be made voluntary rather than enforced by threat of violence, and I’d argue that requiring all servitude to be uncoerced would lead to a better future.
Marvel and Starwars have been taking heat for pumping out boring and poorly written films for a while now. I think Pixar’s stuff is still mostly decent, though. That being said, I also expect a completely different standard of work from Pixar since it’s for kids first and foremost.
Miles is chill in my book. I appreciate what he is tackling, and hope he continues.
It seems that there are much worse issues with AI systems that are happening right now. I think those issues should be taking precedent over the alignment problem.
Some of the issues are bad enough right now that AI development and use should be banned for a limited time frame (at least 5 years) while we figure out more ethical ways of doing it. The fact that we aren’t doing that is a massive failure of our already constantly-fucking-up governments.
I’d argue Hanlon’s razor is not a very good heuristic. It ultimately presupposes the user of it is the mental superior in the situation, and does not take into account polarized and ambiguous controversies. It also encourages energy wasting by presupposing the issue lies with mental capacity or education, suggesting that you could educate your opponent out of their stance.
I’d recommend moving towards more energy-conserving practices. Rather than arguing your points directly, it’s better to first understand why the opposition would be taking their current stance and adjust your argument based on what common ground you both share.
Possibly the greatest skill is to just learn when it’s no longer worth your time to argue with them.