@coffee_enjoyer's banner p

coffee_enjoyer

☕️

4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 11:53:36 UTC

				

User ID: 541

coffee_enjoyer

☕️

4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 11:53:36 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 541

Yes, Chabadnik hat + phenotype + context clues (smirking as recording a group of Palestinian protesters).

  • -10

If what you’re saying is true, there should be a case of someone being disciplined or fired specifically on the grounds of bullying and harassment for making an anti-black or anti-gay comment entirely outside a teacher-student context [eg, in a professor’s own self-published work]. I do not know of any case of this happening, but if you know of a case then it would prove your argument.

I can help you imagine. If a group of BLM protestors have sequestered themselves into a square to do their BLM chants and so forth, then someone dressed in a police uniform with his phone out to record is clearly the provocateur if he attempts to enter the zone when there is clearly no interest in the zone other than provocation. (Notice the square is densely packed and it is evening.) It is crybullying to call it harassment if the BLM people hold their arms to prevent your incursion. Of course, I’m saying this as someone who thinks BLM was the height of American stupidity. This is why it’s ubiquitous during protests to separate the two sides, and the police will often prevent a member of one side from entering the other side.

Looks like they are stopping that (Zionist) student from recording the faces of the protestors, by preventing him from entering into the protest square with his phone recording. This would be evidence that Zionist students want to harass the protestors, but not evidence of protestors harassing Jewish students.

The Anglicans / Episcopalians who run the hospital, who are far and away the most unbiased party in this conflict, talk about hundreds of women and children dead: https://twitter.com/sgcjerusalem/status/1714333560679580130. Richard Sewell, who oversees the hospitals, tweeted before the blast that there were thousands seeking shelter in the hospital.

Because Israel was (and IMO still is) the most likely culprit given the blast size, the fact that they were bombing Gaza at the time, the fact that there have been tens of thousands of rockets fired and misfired by Hamas that never look like that blast size, and given Israel’s history of bombing health centers over the past 10 years. It’s actually amazing so far that they have managed to reverse the narrative entirely. But that’s why it’s important to see all the evidence of the event and consider it in full.

“Because it matters now” and “because current life matters” begs the question. I can ignore human suffering and focus on my own pleasure, and then I will have more pleasure, and there will be no consequences because we will all die and be forgotten. And I feel no guilt or shame, because I am doing what I want to do.

That is a good question: why do palliative care to a child with cancer? I mean, I can completely ignore that whole cohort of humans, and be content with my own pleasure. Then that cancer patient will be dead and it will be like they never existed. There is no one to judge me, so why bother? And if someone else judges me, again I can ignore them. If they press on, I can lie to obtain their social validation. This is where thinking atheism takes us IMO. Life becomes like a video game, where people make alliances and then break them for fun. And IMO, atheists find this repugnant and so develop their own faith — disorganized and ad hoc, but of the same quality as theists.

Another question is why we would care about creating new human life. We can take all those resources and make our lives as pleasant as possible, and then humans will cease to exist. But we would live like bachelors.

The TV and IKEA examples only affect the pocket of the owners and investors, who make a lot of money. The employees are unaffected. I would argue that road tolls, while not affecting only the wealthy, are immoral, and that the costs should be taken from the wealthy owners and investors of corporations/cities whose goods are being trucked on the roads.

littering while driving

But nature is valued itself as something innocent and fragile. Literring is bad because it harms nature. Nature is a totally different cognitive space from social contract kind of stuff. It has a semi-divine status in the American imagination (rightfully).

snacks from the break room

These are white collar people, right? The employees should file a complaint to the multimillionaire C-Suite that they want more snacks. I agree that for a small business this would be pretty immoral. But the break room is also used by just random people you will never meet who work at the company, right?

Ukrainian culture does not exist as separate from the history of Russians, though. That’s why it is nearly identical to Russian culture, religion, and language.

Actually, this proved the exact opposite. Hooven was never disciplined by the university at all, and instead was “boycotted” by graduate students.

https://www.goacta.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Carole-Hooven-transcript.pdf

How is it possible that you don’t understand that it evades the point? That’s shocking, because it’s a very clear case of arguing against the substance — which should never be done because it wastes time (hence my terse reply, and now I have to waste time clarifying something so simple). It’s not just bad argumentation, it’s damaging to the whole discussion because of that.

  1. We are talking about the overcharging of goods with water as an example. The one example is not the substance of the argument.

  2. If someone wants a bottle of water they should be purchasing it at a reasonable price. Tap water has nothing to do with the claim. It’s not always possible to drive with an open cup of water in your car, depending on cupholders and road conditions

  3. If some locations allow free cups of water, what does this have to do with the locations which do not? Even if points 1 and 2 don’t apply, the simple fact that there are locations which do not give free water makes this whole argument a wasteful tangent. See here, here, here

move the goalposts

it’s crucial to understand the difference between substance and trivial details

to the substance that is single most responsible for the American pre-diabetic and diabetes epidemic.

Are you trolling?

This isn't just poor argumentation

I will read the rest of your post if you can confirm that you’ve understood why you are incorrect per the above

Do you think there will be a change in forum viewership after that screenshot was viewed three million times on Twitter?

Prices can’t increase more than a consumer is willing to pay, and return policies have always had profit in mind (unless there’s a law / regulation). If you’re telling me that consumers would be willing to pay at a higher point, then it would be priced at that already. If you’re telling me that the price would need to rise as otherwise the business would go bankrupt, that’s disproven by the huge investor/corporate profits which would suffer before bankruptcy. If you’re telling me that every business would increase their price-per-TV in unison in order to maximize corporate profit rather than competing over lowering prices, then that’s a good reason to steal from the businesses. Whether GameStop is raking in the profits by being the foremost video game retailer, or whether they are a tiny retailer with hardly any profit at all due to online purchases, the consumer is paying essentially the same for essentially the same service. The difference is simply that the leadership once made a lot of money, and now they don’t — the service is identical. And their return policy has always sucked, because they can get away with it. Let us let the consumer get away with things too!

corporations pay a great deal of tax despite accounting for a small portion of road congestion

Road wear is why we have tolls, that’s largely caused by trucking and next by employees going to work. Surely the party which reaps the resources from both of these should be the party paying for the road wear. It would be pretty silly if an entry employer had to pay the same for road wear as the CEO of Amazon, when the CEO reaps the most profit of the economic economy which results in road wear

Nature has nothing to do with it.

Nature, uh, finds a way. Like wind. I can say at least for myself, I am literally okay with thievery but would never think about leaving a cigarette butt anywhere outside, even on a city street. For me at least, it’s the sanctity of nature. I can’t speak for others, so maybe you’re right that they have a different motive

The demand for snacks is effectively infinite

The employees should form some sort of demand organization for the implementation of receiving tokens for their labor, which can be redeemed for food items, and perhaps for other items too. They can then decide amongst themselves the proper balance of corporate pay to token maximization, by electing or bargaining with the leadership of the company. Given that the employees are motivated by token maximization themselves, this would naturally lead to a company which profit-maximizes without sacrificizing any employee benefit/quality of life / tokens. Until such a day, I do believe that the employees should be stealing snacks, even hoarding them, and staplers and other stationary on occasion too.

I know most of the people on my floor personally or by reputation

I would consider it immoral then to steal snacks from them, then, yes

Right. This would arguably be worse than the holocaust. The holocaust took place when Germans were being killed in the millions and civilians were starving in the hundreds of thousands. But this atrocity would take place after the moral lesson of the holocaust, by a people who were victims of the event, and when Israel is facing zero threat to its continued existence and territorial sovereignty.

Do you think that one group is more immoral than another simply because of chance? So if two people try to kill each other equally, the one whose gun didn’t jam is more immoral? If two people attempt adultery, the immoral one is the one who is more attractive? I don’t think I’m representing your view correctly here. In the case of Hamas vs Israel, I’m saying Hamas can’t be “more immoral than Israel” if Israel would do the same to them all things being equal. This doesn’t imply that international law is suddenly abolished or that the actions can’t be censured by some third party nation. I’m only making an assertion about morality relative to the two. So an application would be that neither Hamas nor Israel get to claim righteousness or moral high ground.

It’s unknowable but we can still consider things that are likely.

Extremist Jews consider their homeland to be Israel which nullifies your example

Okay, we can see if that way, but then they are doing something infinitely worse — abusing and destroying resources, value, and potential, which are what underlies the importance of money.

Not at all, we can ask reasonable questions like:

  • does the protest movement actually represent a serious concern among a significant number of students? (Concerns like: segregation, corruption, genocide, or etc?) (Yes)

  • does the protest movement occupy a small space, and are there a sufficient number of protesters to occupy that space? (Yes)

  • is the space unnecessary for reasonable facility at the university? (Yes)

If you don’t want this textbook example of protesting, you are saying you only want protests when they get permission by the party in power (state and/or administrators or an institution). You would be denying, for instance, the implicit right of Jewish students to protest if (hypothetically) a university would ban their synagogues. You would be denying the utility and morality of all the protests that occurred to end segregation. Genocide is as serious as any of these concerns, and apparently a number of students — with negative financial interest and negligible social interest at play, students at our top university — want to protest about it. There are a lot of ramifications to that belief and it involves a superstitious belief in the omnibenevolence of those in power.

You have posted a lot of information, so what I decided to do was pick one at random. I looked into your quote from Hosenfeld. This quote would be significant: it is perhaps the earliest admission by a Nazi officer of the conscious mass killing of Jews.

The provenance of the material is... questionable. Hosenfeld’s writings appear to be completely unknown to holocaust scholarship before the year 1999, appearing neither in a book nor in a scholarly article, not even in passing mention. The few book instances I could find on google scholar have the wrong publication date. It may appear, for instance, that page 905 of volume 9 part 1 of the sprawling “Germany and the Second World War” contains the oldest mention of Hosenfeld, but in fact this volume was published in 2012 and seems to be based on the material in the book version of the Pianist. On inspecting the book version of the Pianist, I find the following:

The appendix publishes, for the first time, entries from the diary of Wilm Hosenfeld

The book gives no account of how the letters and diary were ever obtained by the writer, but implies that they fell into the hands of a “Leon Warm”. He has no biographical details that can be found online. His full name is, allegedly, “Leon Warm-Warczynski”, and despite being integral to this story (and ironically a great amateur archivist) I can find no evidence that he ever lived. The book “the Pianist” was written by the 87 year old Władysław Szpilman, who died a year later. I am not sure if an historian has ever touched the documents, let alone examined and verified their authenticity.

We have been presented with documents that have no "authentic transmission", as the Muslims might say. So now I want to post some of the alleged writing of Hosenfeld. Knowing that the material appeared at first in a book which was an enormous commercial hit, we can consider whether they come off as authentic. Just from the writing itself. You know, does it pass the “smell test”. Here's an excerpt from our dear friend Wilm Hosenfeld:

Why did this war have to happen at all? Because humanity had to be shown where its godlessness was taking it. First of all Bolshevism killed millions, saying it was done to introduce a new world order. But the Bolshevists could act as they did only because they had turned away from God and Christian teaching. Now National Socialism is doing the same in Germany. It forbids people to practise their religion, the young are brought up godless, the Church is opposed and its property appropriated, anyone who thinks differently is terrorized, the free human nature of the German people is debased and they are turned into terrified slaves. The truth is kept from them. They can play no part in the fate of their nation. There are no commandments now against stealing, killing or lying, not if they go against people's personal interest. This denial of God's commandments leads to all the other immoral manifestations of greed - unjust self-enrichment, hatred, deceit, sexual licence resulting in infertility and the downfall of the German people. God allows all this to happen, lets these forces have power and allows so many innocent people to perish to show mankind that without him we are only animals in conflict, who believe we have to destroy each other. We will not listen to the divine commandment: 'Love one another'. Very well, then, says God, try the Devil's commandment, the opposite: 'Hate one another'. We know the story of the Deluge from Holy Scripture. Why did the first race of men come to such a tragic end? Because they had abandoned God and must die, guilty and innocent alike. They had only themselves to blame for their punishment. And it same today.

What a focus on the commandments! We have denied God’s commandments and we will die as a result, “innocent and guilty” alike, and only have ourselves to blame for our punishment. You would think a Jew wrote this! Let me tell you why I giggled reading that excerpt. You see — and this was probably unknown to whoever actually wrote this stuff — Hosenfeld came from a family of devout Roman Catholics. His father was a Catholic schoolmaster and he attended Catholic school. His family held a strong family tradition of Catholicism. He was active in the catholic social movement “Catholic Action”. Hosenfeld was a pedigreed Christian Catholic, born when this was taken seriously (1895). The idea that a pedigreed Catholic like Hosenfeld would explain the evil of the world in terms of forgetting commandments is comically insane — that is a purely Jewish construct that isnt just missing from Christianity but repudiated. A Catholic like Hosenfeld would never see the evil of the world through this prism. If he were irreligious, which he is not given the “Christian teaching” mentioned (by the way, a Catholic would also never use the phrase "God and Christian teaching" lol), his education would have protected him from the error of thinking that following commandments earns salvation and protects against God's wrath.

We are lead to believe from this passage that Hosenfeld, the serious Catholic, saw the evil of the world primarily in terms of commandments. No early 20th century Christian would claim that the denial of commandments led God to inflict punishment on them. This line of thought could only come from a Jew. A Christian would say that a failure to follow Christ has led to sin and so forth. A failure to confess, a failure to repent, a failure to accept God's love, but never a failure to follow commandments. I can’t adequately describe how alien the thought process in this passage would be to anyone from a Catholic background born in the 19th century. “God is allowing evil to happen to show mankind” that we need God? Yet there’s no mention of Christ, of the Son, of salvation, of redemption? This Catholic believes the “innocent along with the guilty have themselves to blame for their punishment”? Nope. Sorry. This is a complete and utter forgery, I would stake my entire (completely irrelevant) reputation on the line here. This isn't the only thing that gives the gag away -- the other exerpts speak on humans "feeling the burden of our own evil and imperfections" with zero mention of Christ or forgiveness... we read phrases like "on a Sunday, when you can indulge in your own thoughts" with no mention of Mass... No.

This is an example of what we can call gish "yiddish gallop". When there is a discussion on the holocaust, the mainstream narrative supporter can copy and paste some quotes he found within a few minutes on the first page of Google. He can just assume that they are “reliable”. The non-mainstream party has the onus to inspect the material, certainly. But this could take hours if it is even practical. Thankfully there are Russian ebook torrenting sites that permit me to illegally download such lofty and voluminous tomes as Germany and the Second World War Volume IX/I, and such triumphs of creative writing as the Pianist. Alas, I don't know if I can do more research after this one. I relent, believe your holocaust, I lack the strength.

Trademarks are for authenticating products

That’s not what trademarks are for in practice. They are for signaling status. Any visible trademarked logo you see is for status. I’m all for manufacturer authentication, just not visible externally or too small to be noticed by someone else.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/how-the-stanley-cup-went-viral

In 2019, the brand’s now star product, the forty-ounce Quencher, was selling so poorly that the company had stopped restocking or marketing it. A partnership with the Buy Guide, an affiliate-marketing site based in Utah, where the Quenchers were popular among Mormon mothers, saved it. Coached by the Buy Guide, in 2020, Stanley launched a new Web site and an affiliate-marketing system through which fans could make money by driving sales

Outsourcing marketing is marketing

What might appear to be an organic phenomenon, though, is actually an engineered corporate crossover. Companies prepare carefully, and expensively, to cultivate their moments of ubiquity. They leverage our attention, the same way an influencer does, to convert online viewers into fans and customers.

Trademarks should be used to compensate for the cost of innovation. The reason Stanley profited so much from their product is that they succeeded in manipulating female buying preferences by associating it with high status. That’s it. It’s a grotesque waste of resources and predicated on manipulating the public imagination. So in the case of stupid cups and other status items, there should be no trademarks (maybe a small number on the bottom of items to guarantee quality with a trusted producer only).

It’s funny that this is where the buck stops with capitalists. No no no, you can’t regulate like this, you need to regulate like that! Changing how we regulate is unthinkable!

If you’re thinking something like, “BestBuy competes with Walmart over lowered TV prices, when both of these companies face theft they will be forced to increase prices in proportion to the theft; the price of TVs is already as low as it can be, so theft causes an increase in prices”. But I don’t think this is true. If we had a real competition between BestBuy and Walmart, we wouldn’t see as much profit as we see going to the top. It would be a race to the bottom for both prices and C-Suite/Investor profit. I think these companies actually have pseudo-monopolies in their locations, because consumers are unwilling to travel very far for purchases or to spend a lot of mental energy doing cost-saving arithmetic. This is different from your local bodega and coffee shop where a person can walk down the street to a better competitor and where the daily cost of items are more salient.

It’s more likely to me that the cost for TVs is set according to whatever price the consumer will not grumble over, rather than some magical “best possible price”. The price right now is fixed at “as high as possible for the consumer to not decide against buying a TV”. If this is true, theft actually can’t increase prices, because the consumer will opt against buying a TV if it is any higher. If they attempt to increase prices, they would simply lose profit, because the American consumer can just stick to his old TV, or stick to his computer.

If you’re saying, “Walmart will decide against doing business if its profits suffer too much”, I would again point at GameStop as evidence that this isn’t so. Or just the fact that, provided you can make more than the median wage selling TVs, someone will be out there selling TVs.

So, the consumer stealing from BestBuy is a lot like a free peasant stealing from his lord who has a monopoly over his land. The consumer can’t be assed to travel very far because he’s stressed and has too many commitments, just like the peasant can’t be assed to travel hundreds of miles by foot to possibly get a better deal with his peasantry.

Read the thread. It’s disingenuous to imply that hitting the center courtyard where patients and families and refugees gather is not hitting the hospital. And the Anglicans also testify that Israel had hit the hospital on the 14th, and had told them four times to evacuate. And no, he’s not repeating Hamas lines (lol), he is in communication with the hospital leadership.

Does anyone know of a video of a Hamas rocket landing from a ground POV? The sound of the hospital blast is identical to a JDAM missile sound, but I want to hear if a Hamas rocket sounds similar.

It wasn’t an initial confused claim, though, it was atrocity propaganda, which requires a stable phrase to repeat and a visual image. An IDF spokesperson doesn’t accidentally say “40 babies decapitated”.