distic
1yr ago
If society has to live a lie, it certainly is at a higher cost than if it is telling the truth. You cannot train everyone to lie everyday and expect no consequences. (1984 is often presented as a book about mass surveillance, it is actually about truth and lies. "Freedom is the freedom to say that two and two make four, everything else follows".)
So it seems that both questions (the truth of the gender theory and the damages to society) are related.
Personaly, I would comply with anyone's desire to be treated as a woman, a man or anything else. I don't see the point in bothering these people about their personal choices. But if someone asks me out of context, what I think about gender theory, it seems to me it is my duty to say that I don't believe in it (or at least in some of its main points).
And I have no problem with society enforcing more kindness toward trans people, but at some point there must be spaces where we forget any kindness requirements and look coldly at the truth.
distic
8mo ago
The fact that an idea is stupid does not mean that someone as intelligent as Marx could not have agreed with it. Kant believed that you can know a priori the geometry of space and Popper thought that evolution theory was not scientific.
If machines do produce value, then the capitalist isn't stealing from the proletarian, they are producing wealth together. There is no exploitation and the ethical side of marxism falls entirely.
distic
6mo ago
It's not that clear to me what they mean with "mother/daughter". Looking at a daughter and a mother having sex (incest porn)? Or for a daughter to want to have sex with her own mother? Or for a mother to have desires for her daughter? Because incest porn is quite widespread, but it's not the same as being excited by your own daughter.
distic
6mo ago
will drive them towards other less restrictive platforms.
Why would such platforms survive? Surely, if Google has to exploit "sources of revenues" because "budgets are tighter, bubbles are popping", smaller institution will have to. Or is google in a particularly bad situation?
distic
8mo ago
You are right, he just needs to provide help. For the discussion he might ask questions like "why do you want to cancel" and let her give her reasons. He can also emphasize that while canceling has a financial cost it's nothing compared to a divorce.
She might find no one now, but she has more chances than when she will be 10 years older and divorced with children. And losing weight is not that difficult compared to being in a terrible marriage
distic
7mo ago
Out of hate, perhaps? Or as a revenge? I'm pretty sure raping women is useless for the freedom of palestinians, it does not prevent hamas to do it. People do not always act in their best interests... if they did, there would be no suicide terror attack
distic
6mo ago
A ceasefire would accomplish a lot. For example, you can move a patient from hospital A to hospital B without fearing for his life, and perhaps he needs to be there now. You can leave your house if you feel it is dangerous to stay there, without being shot.
Israel don't want a ceasefire because Israel has an army of reservists. Those reservists can't be used forever, it cannot last more than a few months.
Moreover, I wonder what you think can be achieved without a ceasefire. Assume Israel kills all Hamas members, there are still a huge number of people who have lost someone (a child, a parent, an aunt...) and who will hate Israel forever.
distic
1yr ago
The transgender being "apoplectic when people question their metaphysics" is purely the result of their requests to be treated as the "gender" they identify with. Society is not discussing whether cis-women are women, so the only way to treat trans-women equally would be to not discuss it either for them. It is a ridiculous expectation, obviously, but it explains why the truth question is so important.
distic
8mo ago
No I'm just explaining you the difference between the facts (the explicanda of the theory), like the price of diamonds and water, and the explanation of those facts (the theory itself), like supply and demand. It is true, however, that the theory is always more precarious than the facts
distic
8mo ago
The paradox of value is that things that are more useful than others as a whole, like water, have a lower price than other scarcer things like diamonds.
Replace water with cleaning ladies and diamonds with software engineers and you get exactly the same situation as above
distic
8mo ago
Well it's still as I said, excepted that the old usual system survives and makes it odd. We have something of the sort in the UE: if you are a binational, you can elect 2 governments, and those governments are ruling the EU together (I'm not sure it's not also possible to vote twice for EU parliament). As long as there are few people with two votes, it's not that important.
distic
10mo ago
Americans were wildly misled about the situation, for example, lots of them thought that Saddam was connected with 9/11. Taking down Iraq was strategic goal of Israel.
It seems to me that people that are so easily mislead should take part in no decision at all. As I said somewhere else, being dumb is no excuse.
distic
10mo ago
An angry Bob in middle America has no power to formulate plans for middle East invasions and then put them into action.
Democracy means that everyone is responsible for what happens. Especially everyone which was in favor of the choice that was made. Sure, a guy in middle America wouldn't have been able to change anything himself, but it would have made a huge difference if a lot of angry Bob in middle America had opposed the war, instead of being in favor of it. The jews weren't a majority of the Bush electorate, and it's pretty clear that the Bush electorate supported the war.
Many Americans wanted revenge for 9/11. The direction those emotions were guided in and the actions those emotions were used to justify were completely the work of neocons and zionists. To pretend those two movements are not extremely jewish goes beyond any reason.
People were angry. They wanted a war. So they are not completely innocent. Moreover, the problem of the war in Irak was more the war than the fact that it happened in Irak. All the other possible targets of the "revenge" were even worse: Pakistan has nukes, Saudi Arabia has oil. Other countries had no responsibilities in 9/11. They could have argued for peace, but you know very well that it wouldn't have worked. Some people have tried (some of them jewish), but they have never been heard. So the neocons provided you with what you wanted: the best (or the least bad) target they could find. That was not the main problem. The problem was that an angry mob was asking for blood. Being dumb and emotional is no excuse.
distic
7mo ago
Israel might start with Hezbollah. It's a more realistic target than Iran, and it would be more explanable to the population (we can't get rid of the Hamas because hostages but we will get rid of hezbollah). I don't really believe it will happen, it's just something possible
I don't know, but the West bank is not controlled by Hamas so you can't put it on them. Moreover, from Wikipedia:
According to a 2013 World Bank report, Israeli restrictions hinder Palestinian economic development in Area C of the West Bank. A 2013 World Bank report calculates that, if the Interim Agreement was respected and restrictions lifted, a few key industries alone would produce US$2.2 billion per annum more (or 23% of 2011 Palestinian GDP) and reduce by some US$800 million (50%) the Palestinian Authority's deficit; the employment would increase by 35%.
I don't know if this report is biased.
distic
7mo ago
Well, it wasn't clear from my comment but the brutality and the settlements are not necessary for Israel to exist, so they aren't justified at all. I mean, if you are searching for a peaceful solution and not to justify your own crimes.
distic
1yr ago
This helpful article from Wikipedia may explain it all to you, it certainly opened my eyes:
Far-right politics, also referred to as the extreme right or right-wing extremism, are political beliefs and actions further to the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of being radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, as well as having nativist ideologies and tendencies.
Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views.
If Sanderson believes his church's teachings, and his church teaches that gay acts are sinful, then his church is homophobic. And being homophobic means you are far-right, which means you're the same thing as a Nazi. Doesn't matter if he never personally burned a gay or trans person at the stake, until and unless he denounces Mormonism and acknowledges his guilt and accepts he was wrong all along, he's a Nazi. And you don't tolerate Nazis, now do you?
You are drawing so much conclusions from a factual wikipedia article.
-
It is a fact that the nazis were homophobic. It is also a fact that the nazis were far right, and also a fact that homophobia is a view held by a lot of far-right people. Are you challenging any one of these facts? It does not mean that if you are homophobic you are far right or a nazi. You know, most people have two legs but birds aren't people. By the way, you should have noted the "and/or" in the list, which suggests that far right people hold several of those views, not just one.
-
"Doesn't matter if he never personally burned a gay or trans person at the stake, [...] he's a Nazi." When you do this comment, it seems to me you are saying that anyone who did not personally burned anyone cannot be a Nazi. In this case, there have been very few nazis. Hitler, for example, did not burn anyone "personally", as far as I know. At the end, the holocaust was organized in such a way that almost no one had to kill anyone directly. Not every nazi is a war criminal. Most nazis were just people like you and me that lived their lives peacefully. They just happened to vote for some nazi guy once, and to help the regime once in a while.
distic
1yr ago
Now there is a shift, a formation of new nations. Modern France or England are already France and England only in the geographical sense. The brain is American; the body is gradually being mullattized (mixed marriages, mass immigration of Blacks and Arabs). As a result, new ethnicities are gradually emerging, with a new history, a new religion. Already this France resembles France of the 18th century only as much as the «Holy Roman Empire of the German nation» resembled the original Roman Empire.
This is bullshit. Whoever wrote this does not know France at all. Sure, we are closer to America now. Sure, we look less like 18th century France. But does America look like 18th century America? This argument is shitty. Modern France does not look like 18th century France because we have cars, planes, trains and computers. Nothing to do with America by itself.
The relationship to the economy and to the culture is not at all the same in France and in the US. It's not that French people oppose freedom to own weapons, it's that they do not even understand why anyone would not oppose it.
-
Currently, there is a strike in refineries that would have created an oil shortage if the government did not react by using strategical reserves. Can you imagine that in the US?
-
There is a national ban of headscarves (or actually any kind of religious or political symbols) at public schools in France. Can you imagine that in the US?
-
In the last presidential election, we got an actual socialist at 22% (the guy is anti NATO and thinks Taiwan should belong to the US). Macron got 28% and Le Pen 23%. Can you imagine that in the US?
-
Healthcare and retirement schemes are state-controlled. Can you imagine that in the US?
distic
10mo ago
When you say that "the jews" are responsible for something, it's a requirement that at least a majority of them were wanting for it to happen.
distic
10mo ago
The problem with your theory is that the american jews have not really been in favor of the war:
https://forward.com/news/1797/poll-70-of-jews-oppose-iraq-war/
distic
10mo ago
It's not a democracy/dictatorship question. It's about imperialistic leaders that only respect strength. They see any concession as a sign of weakness. There are leaders like that in democracies too, even though it's rarer and they are less dangerous because their powers are limited.
distic
10mo ago
Well it seems better for people there to let them go to moscow instead of stopping them and having them come at you. Civilians are not equipped to fight soldiers
distic
1yr ago
The catholic dogma was interpreted this way at the time of the Council of Florence (see also Dante), but it stopped to be long before Vatican II. For example:
To be in the communion of the Catholic Church and to be a member of the Church are two different things. They are in the communion of profession of her faith and participation of her sacraments, through the ministry and government of her lawful pastors. The members of the Catholic Church are all those who with a sincere heart seek the true religion and are in unfeigned disposition to embrace the truth wherever they find it. It never was our doctrine that salvation can be obtained only by the former.
John Carroll, first bishop of the US.
For the protestant, I don't get it. I was taught that they believe in fate, so that your salvation was decided by God before your birth and your actions don't matter, but I'm no expert.
Yes he was a drug addict but he had been for years and he dies the same day as Navalny.
And now a pilot who defected to Ukraine and lived in Spain...
More options
Context Copy link