Mer
1yr ago
but she picked such an awful case that now she has to go. Because she's tainted that argument with a hugely unpopular thing and she's the face of both
It's also worth considering that she might have had to go because she was insufficiently zealous in her support of that case. We can't assume that those responsible for her ousting share the same understanding of what is sensible and reasonable as we do.
Mer
1yr ago
you're not going to research a topic you don't think is important
Of course you will, I'm a historical wargamer and frequently research topics of no consequence other than to sate my curiosity and interest in the given topic. There are plenty of people who will delve to incredible depths on topics for no reason other than the desire to know more.
A far greater predictor for if you will research something is interest in the subject, how important you judge something to be can play a role in that, but it doesn't seem to be a major one, given how absurdly heated people can get on topics that they actually have almost no knowledge of.
Mer
1yr ago
But what if you're under any kind of artillery fire?
Be where the artillery isn't.
Just drive away, speed is armour.
Mer
10mo ago
You're thinking of this from a male-brained perspective
I mean, it's not like I have much choice on the matter and believe me I am aware that women find the things I like to be boring. I'm not going to be so cruel as to try and force some poor woman to sit through Das Boot.
If you were instead born a girl, or a switch flipped to turn you overnight into a woman (with the attendant neurological and hormonal changes), female-you might suddenly find eating hot chip and lying to be intensely interesting activities, alongside twerking, being bisexual, and charging your phone. Female-you might suddenly have a higher tolerance for boredom in general.
I see your point, but at the same time that's such a radical and fundamental change that I don't think I'd consider this hypothetical person to be me anymore. Who I am can't be disentangled from growing up as a boy and living as a man.
Mer
11mo ago
I think presumably the implication is that the FBI believes that ISIS truly does recruit online and that by re-routing some of the would-be terrorists to them, they are taking away "real" terrorists.
That's similar to my thinking, I would imagine that the justification is that they're clearing out the proverbial deadwood. This approach also has the added benefit of reducing the probability of these kinds of people forming their own groups and deterring smarter people from attempting to reach out and join/form their own groups.
I would say it's a sound strategy.
Mer
1yr ago
I own precisely one suit that no longer fits me and haven't worn it for years at this point. Frankly I wouldn't consider the later stuff you list as appropriate for a business/formal social occasion, that's what I'd consider to be casual clothes for going about town (maybe not the thawb and keffiyeh, depends on the town at that point).
I would say I'm generally well dressed, in the sense that I wear clothes that fit and have a coherent "look" to them, I just tend to prefer a more casual style. These days I mostly wear a jeans, shirt and wifebeater combo. I strive to look like I've just stepped out of 1980s Miami, although if I'm being honest it's more often 1970s surfer.
Mer
1yr ago
Depends what they're reading and what they're playing, I'd rather have a child playing Vintage Story, an RTS or something similar over quite a lot of the crap that gets put to paper. Growing up I read a lot of books and played quite a few games, I enjoyed both and looking back I don't really see one being more valuable than the other. In a practical sense I probably got more out of playing Age of Empires than I did from reading Redwall for example.
Mer
1yr ago
Yes. Because everyone uses dating apps now
I'd like to see some numbers to back up that claim, I know nobody that has used dating apps for anything more than hook ups and even then, that's not exactly common. It's my experience that people find relationships through work/school or mutual friends.
My experience in general with how people talk about relationships and dating online has been one of bafflement. It's always this sturm und drang about how dating is impossible for the average man, women are ruthless harpies and the dating world has become this mad max style post apocalyptic wasteland ruled over by the new supermen. Then I look out the window and everything seems fine, people pursue relationships that aren't much changed from the kind that their parents would have pursued.
I've increasingly come round to the idea that talking about relationships online attracts a certain kind of individual, with a certain kind of world view and experiences and that this lends a certain tint to the discourse.
Mer
1yr ago
This is the most public example, where Macron made an ass of himself by refusing to see that Putin was not serious about negotiating or talking on this issue.
There will be near constant back channel talks between Russia and other nations as the war progresses and there was undoubtedly a great deal of trying to convince Russia before the war (god knows the Germans and French have been trying to court Russia for long enough).
Mer
1yr ago
This reply feels like a non-sequitur, I think you've replied to the wrong comment.
Also for the record, anyone bleating about how nobody has just tried to talk with Russia is either ignorant of the situation or pretending to be so, plenty of people and groups have attempted to provide an avenue for a negotiated end to hostilities, Russia has simply rejected them by insisting that the only "negotiation" they'll accept is one where they get everything they want.
If you want to bring Russia to the negotiating table you'll apparently need to pave the road to it with tens of thousands of Russian dead.
Mer
1yr ago
I'd stick with the best of this particular "genre", so things like Animal Farm, 1984, etc.
The books you're recommending are good and I'm a fan of both, but they are well above the level we're talking about.
Mer
10mo ago
So many you just don't respect women?
I wouldn't put it like that. I just really enjoy being male, all of my interests are deep inside "man" territory and as such there's really nothing on the feminine side of the spectrum that makes me go "oh yeah, I'd want that for myself".
I'm pretty lucky thus far and haven't been stabbed, although I have had to pick some decent sized shards of broken bottle out after one nasty incident, I was lucky to not need stitches. No breaks either, although I've dislocated my right shoulder twice and my nose tends to dramatically explode into a fountain of blood whenever someone so much as taps it. Closest I've been to lawsuits/charges over fighting was when I broke another kids leg when I was in my late teens.
I've worked security in a few bars and spent my younger years doing MMA; I've heard similar lines from a lot of 'tough guys' who've never thrown a punch in their lives.
I swear some former doorman always pops up to say this whenever the topic of fighting comes up online, as if you need credentials to make poor life choices. I get into fights because I get angry and make bad decisions in the heat of the moment, I enjoy them because the adrenaline and catharsis of releasing a lot of anger into my surroundings drowns out the pain and fear I would normally feel for doing something so reckless. It's not smart, but it feels amazing.
Mer
10mo ago
Because it's inherently engaging with the series on a very superficial level.
I'd say if you're at the point of writing fan fiction about a setting you're past the point of being "superficially" a fan of something.
A fan is not defined by how much they "get" their chosen obsession, it is defined by the level of enthusiasm/passion for it.
Being moved to write gay fanfiction that completely misses the point of the setting makes someone as much a fan as a person that memorises pointless trivia (who also misses the point of the setting, but in a male way rather than a female way).
Mer
11mo ago
What's the point of principles if you only hold to them on matters that are agreeable anyways?
I would say that there is no point, that you should abandon paying lip service to principles you clearly don't believe in and live a life more authentic to the principles that actually govern your actions.
Mer
1yr ago
I'm not saying I want anything, I'm saying that it's not a question of "can't" but "won't".
There are a few different ways to approach the problem of "insufficient houses to meet demand", ranging from building commie blocks/pods all the way to just dropping regulations and allowing shanty towns to spring up.
I really hate when someone says they can't do something when they actually mean they won't do something.
Mer
1yr ago
Having a shared set of societal ground rules is a good idea and that's pretty much what everyone in the culture war is actually fighting over, last man standing gets to dictate what is normal and what is acceptable for debate.
So I guess you can join the battle royale and hope to be that last man standing as well.
Mer
1yr ago
I've heard this from quite a few people now on this topic and I have to say I find it a little disingenuous to be surprised that people would draw the parallels between fictional characters and established real world stereotypes/historical tropes.
It would be fair to be surprised if they were trying to draw parallels between something in fiction and between real world groups when the two just don't align at all (I've seen this a lot with people of varying shades of political alignment trying to draw parallels between orcs/orks and black people, which I've always found quite unconvincing).
Mer
1yr ago
And the reasoning of many people who call Z-Russians "orcs" is the same as yours
The reasoning behind calling Russian soldiers orcs is actually pretty apt as far as analogies go, since the orcs of the Lord of the Rings were based (in individual character and personality) on some of the enlisted he interacted with during his service in WW1 and (on a larger, more general scale) the armies of eastern despots. Admittedly the eastern despots he was being inspired by were far more likely to be called Darius than Vladimir, but it's still a surprisingly apt comparison.
Mer
1yr ago
If I don't know what a Torta is, then your average Britisher definitely doesn't.
Mer
1yr ago
It's also worth mentioning that he was electoral poison, which certainly would have helped in the push to remove him.
Mer
1yr ago
I am strongly of the opinion that since neoliberal PMC jobs are the easiest to automatic with AI, there will be incredibly strong regulation banning AI from taking the jobs of the PMC. The power to regulate is the power to destroy, and as incapable of actual productivity the PMC and their legion of bullshit jobs are, they know how to run a grift and bask in their own self importance.
This is exactly why the crossbow and handgonnes never took off and why we still live under a feudal system ruled over by our lieges and ladies.
More seriously, this technology is too valuable to not use, anyone who does use it is going to gain a massive advantage over anyone that doesn't, its use is inevitable.
In my experience you've got two different categories of productive arguments with those of a sufficiently differing political alignment.
-
You know the person reasonably well, have an established relationship that they value and they have some respect for you
-
You have no strong links to the person you're arguing with and there are less ideologically committed onlookers
In the first situation I've generally had success by being assertive about what I believe to be true, giving the reasons for why I hold said beliefs and generally emphasising my good intentions. Your mileage may vary however. I don't attempt to "convert" people I've got good relationships with, just respectfully disagree when they say something I feel to be particularly egregious. My strong/assertive personality also probably colours all these relationships and influences how these things go. Or maybe I'm just lucky and happen to only have relationships with reasonable people.
In the second case I opt for a different tack. You have no chance of bringing the other person round to your point of view by being reasonable, so instead your aim should be to dominate the discussion with the aim of influencing the wider community. You're a stand up playing to the crowd, with the aim of making your opponents ideas look ridiculous and yours reasonable and sensible. This requires quite a bit of nuance, a general feeling for the crowd and a quick wit. There are a number of benefits of this kind of strategy compared to the usual kind that I see posted here (hide your true convictions, scuttle around in the dark trading essays with like-minded individuals on how everything has just gone so terribly wrong), this is very much a case of planting a standard. There are downsides to planting a standard, it makes you a target and people know your alignment, but there are also upsides. People know your alignment, like minded people may come to you and I think most importantly, it gives whatever you believe in a degree of legitimacy. It shows that yes, people do believe in/support whatever your standard represents and that they will absolutely sally out to defend it. Your average person is incredibly averse to confrontation or being singled out and will generally modify their behaviour to avoid it. Not everyone expressing woke viewpoints is a committed antifa supersoldier, most have just absorbed these opinions via osmosis.
It's also worth mentioning that obviously walking directly into google and loudly declaring "I think one holocaust was simply not enough" is a great example of how this line of attack does not work for every situation or argument. If your beliefs are so unpopular that you can't declare them openly without very serious consequences (I would firstly urge you to consider if there is perhaps a reason for this and if it might be possible that you are the one with the cooky beliefs), I would say that your best bet is to read Maos little red book and generally brush up on your insurgecy/counter-insurgecy literature. Obviously these are great tools for fighting an armed struggle against a powerful adversary, but the wisdom contained within also applies to un-armed conflict between two (initially) unbalanced forces.
I've gone off on something of a tangent with this post, it's somewhat evolved into a rant about my dissatisfaction with the doom posting and general passivity I tend to see advanced around here.
Mer
1yr ago
For me it seems pretty apparent that Rowling was drawing off of a cultural stereotype about bankers/money-lenders that itself either draws from/is linked to stereotypes about Jews.
I'm also confident enough to say that there are enough degrees of cultural seperation that it isn't anti-semitic to include said stereotypes in a work, because they've essentially been laundered of their initial meaning through centuries of use.
Simply having more children is (or should be) a part of the greater goal, which is to raise fertility and produce functional families. Improving fertility just so that you can have a generation full of ticking time bombs raised in dysfunctional homes is only a marginal improvement over the default of people having fewer kids.
More options
Context Copy link