Jiro
10mo ago
The magic steps in to turn Narnia from [decades of firsthand evidence] into something much less tangible and much easier to convince yourself to forget.
The stereotype is that atheists have good reason to believe in God, but reject him anyway.
To fit this stereotype, people can't magically forget Narnia--that eliminates the "have good reason to believe in" part.
Jiro
10mo ago
I have personally seen myself inexplicably forget very substantial evidence for the existence of God.
I don't believe that you actually had very substantial evidence for God, though you may have thought you did.
Jiro
10mo ago
since this does not seem to clearly violate any existing rules.
Low effort isn't a rule?
Also, if it doesn't violate any rules, but it's obviously something bad for the group, you should add it to the rules so that you can give out a warning next time someone does it.
Jiro
1yr ago
That seems an odd claim to make in regard to a case in which a former President was found liable by a jury.
Why? The former president is the underdog here.
Jiro
1yr ago
It looks as though someone tried that here.
Jiro
1yr ago
If we discovered that Netflix was doing something ridiculously silly like using inefficient file-compression and increasing the amount of bandwidth used, then there would be some basis to complain.
A post above yours says that they basically are.
Jiro
1yr ago
However, it certainly does not make sense to me to enslave someone for 20 years, and then when they ask for a share of my profits
That analogy doesn't fit the question. Blacks benefit from America being prosperous. (Or if they don't, it's because of factors other than slavery.) There's no share of your profits to ask for. There's a share of a pool, but the money would have ended up in the pool whether you enslaved anyone or not.
Jiro
1yr ago
In many ways your comment is exactly the type of person he explains is laughing at him.
Which is poisoning the well.
Jiro
1yr ago
That's a bizarre question. It's well known that computers can do some things better than humans. Exactly what kind of conclusion do you draw from "computers can create garbage SPICE code and most humans can't", that you can't draw from "computers can add two fifty digit numbers and most humans can't" or "computers can spellcheck a 200 page document and most humans can't"?
Speak plainly.
Jiro
1yr ago
Apparently he knows what it is like to be a gay disabled migrant worker because he's a ginger (or was, when he still had hair) and was bullied for it as a kid.
Bullying is serious enough that this is not absurd (aside from the absurdity of being disabled and a migrant worker at the same time; migrant worker jobs are not generally ones that can be done by disabled people.)
Jiro
1yr ago
Murderers wouldn't vote to make murder legal, because they know very well that they could be the victim of murder by someone else. (They might vote to make murder legal only if done by themselves and not by anyone else, but laws like that aren't on the table.) And if a crime is victimless, I'd be fine with letting criminals vote to legalize it. There may be edge cases (a vagrant who doesn't own property may want to make sleeping on someone's property legal) but I doubt that such things would be seriously proposed as laws anyway.
Jiro
1yr ago
I'm pretty sure that the percentage of people of Mexican descent in the US who are illegal immigrants is nowhere near as large as the percentage of Jews who support Israel. I'm also pretty sure that people of Mexican descent, in general, don't consider their immigration status to be part of their cultural identity.
If Trump just said that all people who celebrate Cinco de Mayo are criminals (and assuming for the sake of argument that its importance was not invented by Americans), it would be closer.
Jiro
1yr ago
Even I know that it can be phrased using the word "whom", or have the word order changed.
often a step away from the Great Leader
I don't want someone elected president who is a poor leader. There's an extremely fine line between a great leader and a Great Leader and you'd have to be better at articulating the difference before I'd seriously consider that a claim that someone is the latter to be anything but a boo light. (And if by "Great Leader", you mean "a lowercase great leader, who is divisive", I'll laugh.)
I am referring to the fact that «If not Trump, then who?» is literally one name-swap away from the slogan Если не Путин, то кто? (If not Putin then who?) which was, in this exact form, the symbol of faith of nascent Putinism.
This is a poor argument. Similarity of slogan proves nothing.
And you can't have a slogan "one name swap away" in another language because your ability to word the translation differently gives you an extra degree of freedom when doing comparisons.
because he's not that despised
Trump is not despised in a vacuum. He's despised because any red who had a noticeable chance of winning and took too many red positions, in the age of social media and leftist control of conventional media, would be equally despised.
And this is the political equivalent of the heckler's veto. It makes no sense to oppose someone because his opponents hate him.
Jiro
5d ago
Define powerful. Not going to instantly get fired for supporting Trump? Sure. Having influence, though? That's much harder.
Jiro
1mo ago
I don't know, does he think that Israel is a death cult against Hamas's existence?
Jiro
2mo ago
The algorithm was fine. You saying it's 'unintentional' is just you saying it because you don't feel good about it.
I'm saying it's unintentional because it's unintentional.
Same is true for 'conservatives'? What is your problem here with anything exactly?
"Not shown to people who want something else" doesn't apply. Many people do want conservative viewpoints.
There are more people who don't believe in the holocaust than there are American 'conservatives'.
Google is not aimed at Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Jiro
2mo ago
The people looking up the holocaust and related stuff obviously clicked on it.
Because it was on top of Google. You are trying to justify putting it on top of Google by saying that people clicked on it, but people only clicked on it because it was on top of Google. That's circular reasoning.
It's not false. It's true.
Oh come on now. Holocaust deniers really are a tiny, tiny, minority. Conservatives aren't.
You decide truth for the holocaust and ban it.
No, the world does. Holocaust deniers are a tiny minority, and they state false things.
Progressives decide truth for 'conservatives' and ban it.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should pay no attention to truth because someone might think false things are true?
Jiro
4mo ago
Doesn't the law that allows this to even get to a jury come from the judiciary? And the law specifically extended the statute of limitations to get Trump.
Jiro
7mo ago
That reasoning would still apply for the KKK trying to attack someone in order to create anti-KKK backlash.
Jiro
8mo ago
As a matter of historical fact, Jesus didn't rise from the dead either.
It may not have actually happened as shown in the movie, but people believe it happened. Which still disqualifies it from either being torture porn or from being treated the same way as intentional fiction.
Jiro
9mo ago
Some dude wants to sell me his vote for an ice cream? That’s fine, he clearly wasn’t interested in it, and I am.
Laws affect third parties. Having the guy sell you his vote instead of not voting or voting randomly dilutes the vote of third parties. The third parties may be interested.
Also, poor people would end up all selling their votes and the resulting government would be bad for poor people.
This is Bulverism.
More options
Context Copy link