JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
An example of how social media molds the public discussion. Of course, publishing information which you obtained by legal means about somebody is not illegal. Obtaining it may be illegal if done by means of breaking into somebody's property, for example. But it's not called "the dox" anymore then. But - since Twitter and Facebook told us "publishing hacked information is prohibited!" (which also was a lie in several ways) - now people go around telling each other "talking about hacked information is illegal!"
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
In broader context, at least what I saw from that person until I blocked them, it appears to be on the mark. If not to a particular comment, then definitely to the particular personality.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
If you assume that the intent of all firearms legislation is to antagonize political enemies,
I don't think it's actually the case. The Left wants the Right not to have guns - but not to piss them off. Of course, pissing them off is an added value, but it's not the reason. The reason, depending on the fraction, would be either nobody except the Government should have guns, because nothing good ever comes from any aspect of power not being controlled by the government, or specifically the Right should not have guns, because they are bad people and bad people having guns is scary for the good people. As for "how the legislation is expected to stop bad things from happening", remember those are people who still think socialism is going to work if only you do it right, and releasing criminals from jails is actually the best way to fight crime. Their way of making projections and conclusions is a way that allows that to make sense, so it also allows whatever they think of guns to make sense in the same way.
That said, I think this particular outcome is purely "antagonize the outgroup" scenario, but I disagree that all gun legislation is only that. A lot of it is actually much worse.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I decided some years ago that while I can't practically ensure $0 of my money goes to the wokes in general, I certainly can make it so that as close to $0 as I can goes to the Hollywood/entertainment wokes. Sometimes I still watch some new movies when I feel it's important to know what's going on there - but as it was mentioned, there are certain ways to achieve that. I feel it's a better solution than the alternatives.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
It would be more interesting if instead of changing the Constitution directly, he would create the Anti-Misinformation Ministry, which would ensure anybody who speaks against the Kenlightenment would be silenced and suppressed - while still proclaiming he is the chief protector of the constitution, and only cares about Facts and Logic being properly presented. Like Star Wars being fought by WW1 patterns, this culture war seems to be fought with 19th century means.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Last time I remember they didn't even light the tiki torches up, and they weren't even the deplorables but the Trump-haters - and the right still got criticized for that happening.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I think it's a good thing (probably being an immigrant skews my perspective, but still I think it's an objectively good thing). I understand the fears about importing cheap labor worsening conditions of current workers, and maybe sometimes it is true. But I don't think academia is the place where it is true. I didn't spend much time in academia to have relevant experience but in general that seems to be the case.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
When leftists come into a Congress to protest (happened many times), it's the celebration of democracy. When leftists set cities on fire and destroy property, because they didn't like election results - it's regrettable, but understandable expression of understandable frustration about the democracy being subverted by fascists. When deplorables come into a Congress to protest (happened only once, as I remember?) - it's a fascist treasonous coup, which requires the harshest suppression measures to send them a message. When deplorables set cities on fire and destroy property, because they didn't like election results - well, I don't know, that never actually happened. There never was and never will be any equal treatment in these matters.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
To live apart from the world of carnality and temptation
Interestingly enough, when this lifestyle was much more common that it is now, the popular image of the monk, at least as we can see in the literature, wasn't somebody who necessarily avoids all the carnal pleasures. Of course, sexual pleasures (at least, ghm, of heterosexual nature involving more than once person) would be rare, but other things? Eating, drinking, etc.?
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I remember seeing this done regularly when my company submitted the immigration forms for workers. The purpose of the form was to prove that me (the immigrant) is necessary to the company and no American can be hired instead of importing a filthy foreigner. Obviously, since the company has been employing me for years already, they wanted me to keep working for them, only in the US (and same for other people they were relocating). So they made a job description matching our jobs and skills exactly, so the chance there would be a person with the same skills and experience (who also would see the ad and want to apply) is negligible. Of course, it worked - they published the ads, waited the appropriate time, nobody applied, and they honestly wrote in the immigration forms that people they want to relocate are unique and irreplaceable.
Another common practice is adding qualifiers - you've got Engineer, then Senior Engineer, then Senior Staff Engineer, then Distinguished Senior Staff Engineer, then Distinguished Senior Staff Engineering Fellow, and you can go on with it forever, and obviously each of these is a totally different job.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I mean, you can't, really, it's not for sale.
It wasn't for sale at the start, so what. My house is not for sale either, but offer me 20x the price, and I'll be willing to talk. Why not, I could then buy much better house and all the moving expenses will be covered. There are things that aren't ever for sale, and there are things that aren't for sale but given the right price, may become for sale. There may be a price point where both Greenland residents and Danish government would consider doing it. I'm not sure if that price point would also make it worth it for the US to buy, but at least exploring that question doesn't sound crazy to me, and shouldn't just stop at "not for sale" at the beginning. And there's nothing inherently Danish there also, I mean we're not talking about Copenhagen here, so I don't think it's completely out of the question no matter the price.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Of course, the quality of the translation hinges on the quality of the translator, among other things. There are two schools for translation - one says "stick to the original as close as possible not matter what", other says "get the inspiration from the original and try to achieve the same result by whatever means you find necessary". I have seen both ways have pretty strong successes and dismal failures, and sometimes a strong translator completely overtook over the author and made a good work - but very different from the original. When I can read the original, I usually would prefer it, but since I'm not learning Greek anytime soon, I'll take as good a translation as I can get, maybe even multiple ones. Sometimes taking a half-dozen of translations and comparing how they dealt with a certain piece is even more fun than just reading it once.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
As somebody who regularly rewatches old Star Trek (just finishing DS9, can't wait to see how they are going to deal with that Dominion thing!), I definitely do not object to people making posts about Star Trek today.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Learning all the languages of the world on a level that enables one to appreciate poetry is kinda hard. For that reason, people choose to use translations, while realizing that they are not the same as the original, they still can be enjoyed. Sure, the Iliad is best in its original Greek. But if you don't understand ancient Greek, you can still appreciate it in a good translation. There's no reason to be a snob about it and declare that anything short of genuine performance by a genuine rhapsode is not even worth trying.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
The usual pattern is that it starts hurting when I put force on it in some particular way.
I have some similar weird ones... Like some tendon under my left knee (only the left!) randomly starts hurting like hell when just walking. No strain, no exercise, nothing. And then if I work it a bit and put some light weight on it, some squats, etc. - the pain disappears. If I just rest it, it also comes away in a while, but takes much longer, like hours or even a day. And it could be gone for weeks and then return randomly again. I mentioned it to several specialists and they're mostly "huh, yeah, it's weird :shrug:".
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I think you are right on the statistical level and practical level as it comes to specific context like walking on the street - the looks - which include race, but not only - would convey you a lot of useful information, the looks + location + other context clues would convey even more.
The bad part comes when you isolate the racial component from the rest of the context. If you are statistically likely to be right that a black young man in shabby clothing walking up to you in an arrogant way at night in the middle of "bad neighborhood" may be dangerous, are you also justified to say a well-dressed middle-aged black man that you are interviewing for a position of financial analyst is likely to be dangerous? Should you be more concerned about a black guy in this context than about a white guy or an Asian guy? I'd say probably not, and in any case the context is completely different, and the heuristics should be different. And that illustrates the difference between using race as an input for certain heuristic model, or making the race determine the whole model. For some models, race may not be a significant input and there are likely much better ones (I'd say most hiring contexts and also university admissions are likely to be such contexts), for other models it may be a good one (like being at bad neighborhood in America at night - if you're at a bad neighborhood in Russia, for example, a black man is likely to be a foreign student or a businessman and likely won't do you any harm).
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
lol
I think I understand the argument you are making here, though there could be a possibility it is too complex and nuanced for my weak mental facilities.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
I would be happy if it actually happened, though realistically I don't think it could - the times are different and spectacular events like that aren't happening anymore. Now proposing something like that just marks you as a crazy. While understanding everything about "good old times", I still genuinely feel sad about it.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Trump wanted to revive the tradition by purchasing Greenland, but small-minded people derailed the plan. Sad!
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Of course I understand. My first objection was formulated politely, because I admitted the possibility that you are using the word carelessly, just as people are using "fascist" or "racist" - without actually caring about its true meaning, just to throw some pejorative around. Now that you admitted you use it to imply that attacking infrastructure like a bridge is somehow act of terrorism, I know that you are not careless - you are lying.
taking it as face value the underlying facts I communicated are true (i.e., turning an innocent driver into a suicide bomber against civilian infrastructure)
Why would I take something you parroted from Russian propaganda (the driver part) and something that is just false (the civilian infrastructure) as true? No, I do not.
in either case, this is about you simply not liking the connotations
No, it's about me simply not liking the lies. Especially lazy lies, parroted copypaste from basest war propaganda. It would be decent to at least show some added value.
the use in behavior you agree with in a war on behalf of a side you're feel you're on
it doesn't matter which side I'm on - there were many wars and many sides, and destruction of bridges particularly is an extremely common occurrence and it always have been considered a legitimate military target by any side. And it would be stupid to use it as an act of terror - the impact on civilians is minuscule, the worst you could get is one or two cars? If you want to terrorize - you hit a school. You hit a theater. You hit a bus station or an office building or a mall. This all has been done by Islamic terrorists, by Chechen terrorists and by the Russian government. Because real terrorists know which targets are good for terrorizing. But hitting a bridge in the middle of a war - nobody ever considered it an act of terror except in most base and naked propaganda, the one which doesn't even care if it sounds plausible because it is aimed at people that would parrot anything their side proclaims. Go ahead, find me a war where hitting a bridge wouldn't be considered hitting a war target.
it's initially about someone claiming Putin wants to Kill Zelensky
I gave very detailed treatment of this claim, and specifically pointed out the reasons it is reasonable to consider he tried, and the reasons he can't do it anymore. As an answer, I got vague references to Putin killing some top Ukrainian officials, which haven't been specified - so I suspect they are non-existant - and a lot of false implications in terrorism. Which, btw, are completely unnecessary - wanting to kill an enemy commander in war does not require any terrorist intent, if FDR could kill Hitler, or Hitler could kill FDR, they would, but neither could. So your bringing terrorism into the argument just shows you felt weak without it, and justifiably - because there was nothing to contradict my description of the situation. And, of course, it reveals your biases - you want to present it not just Putin treating Zelensky as en enemy commander - but Putin being so above mere mortals as being nearly a saint, so he'd only possibly want to kill Zelensky is he's a terrorist.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Yes, Reddit has been left-leaning for a long while, but because of subreddits, for a while the red tribe had been allowed to exist in their own bubbles. But it could not last and it didn't. Now it's probably the leftest of the social media platforms (at least if we take the major ones). Even not explicitly political subs - like local ones - are insufferably woke. But still there's some quality content in some subs. On Twitter, I can't really find many redeeming features.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Is it a crime to believe that?
To believe it - only against the truth. To act on it - also a crime against humanity.
If being anti-NATO expansion makes me a Putin blowjobber, consider me guilty
Your terms are acceptable.
It’s interesting that for so many here, the consensus seems to be that this conflict began yesterday.
That conflict began when Putin decided everything he can see around rightfully belongs to him. That happened sometime in mid 2000s, by my estimate.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
Putin has been pretty successful at killing people in leadership
Like whom?
the examples being in response to the first and second terror attacks on the Kerch bridge
Still not sure who do you mean as "people in leadership" that has been killed. Could you elaborate?
Claiming he just doesn't have the capability to know where someone is precisely at what time to even bother trying at all isn't supported by the fact he has, in fact, demonstrated that ability to try and succeed at just that
At just what?
on the SBU headquarters in response to the Kerch bridge terror attack
Please stop with the abuse of the word "terror".
SBU headquaters is a building. It can't be moved. It's big. And yes, they managed to hit this huge building - even though SBU has nothing to do with attacking bridges and also, the funniest of all, SBU has been revealed to be thoroughly infiltrated with Russian agents (which probably coordinated the strike and that's the reason they were so accurate). But I'm not sure why hitting that building proves anything. Sure, they could hit another building in Kiev. They actually did, several times. So what?
And yet, he didn't do that in the opening stage of the war even once.
He didn't use far strike capabilities in the opening stage of war at all. Because he was planning to a) capture Kiev and other central cities by ground troups quickly and b) achieve air superiority very fast. Only failing to do that, he had to resort to long-distance strikes. Of course, when he planned to capture (or kill, I'm not sure which he preferred) Zelensky, he planned it within the framework of his overall strategy, and by the time his strategy failed, he didn't have any capacity to do it anymore. I'm not sure what you refer to when saying "bother trying at all" - like, just shooting rockets at whatever hoping to hit Zelensky? Well, he's doing that for a year and a half now, at least the first part. I don't think he's actually stupid enough to believe any of them may actually hit Zelensky, so by now that option is closed to him.
I can use words however I like
No you can't, if you want to communicate with others. Otherwise wolves won't be flying the carpet by the grumble over the manatee because the gasket jumps blue ribbon. If you want to communicate with people, you need to use words in common meanings in commonly understood ways. And you actually know that, because you use the word "terror" not randomly. It's not some whim that puts random words in random places. You use it in common meaning to imply something that is factually false - i.e. you are lying. And I have called you out, repeatedly, on this lying - and if you intend to continue lying, I will just conclude that proclaiming known lies is how you prefer to communicate. You can say whatever you want, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Here, I'm using it to describe using a possibly unsuspecting truck driver in a suicide attack on civilian infrastructure with civilians currently traversing it
You are repeating Russian propaganda claims without any proof to it. Also, it can't be both "suicide" and "unsuspecting" - you need to separate your propaganda. Russian propaganda claims are often self-contradictory, but they rarely do it within the same sentence. And then you are lying again - the bridge is not a "civilian infrastructure", it is being used for military purposes all the time and is a legitimate war target, as anything in Russia connected to the war is (including all industrial infrastructure, all supplies used in war, all airfields and production capacities, etc. are). Civilians being present changes absolutely nothing - civilians can be present anywhere and are commonly used as human shields, including by Russians. This does not turn a military target into a a purely civilian one. We're not talking about kindergarten or a grain storage or a church (which Russians do attack, we have witnessed it just this week). We're talking about major supply artery which is used to carry military supplies. And any civilians that wanted to avoid the area of active warfare had a lot of advance warning. Nobody forces anybody to travel over that bridge, certainly not Ukrainians.
JarJarJedi
1yr ago
What is your evidence that Vladimir Putin is a genocidal maniac?
Him directly causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people may give a hint. His propaganda claiming Ukraine is a "fake" nation and truly belongs to Russia may give another. But for some Putinverstehers nothing would be enough - they have Russian propaganda bookmarked to justify anything.
This thing: https://www.thegripjaropener.com/ - makes jar opening non issue. I'm sure there are many variations of it, I just posted the first that came up in search results. I am probably strong enough to open many jars the old way, but I never do anymore - why bother? I only wonder why this thing is not the standard in every kitchen.
More options
Context Copy link