tsiivola
2mo ago
The criminal code chapter 34a paragraph 5e criminalizes encouraging or enticing to join a terrorist organization or to commit a terrorist crime, if it is done in a manner that is likely to cause someone to do so. The law does not explicitly mention celebrating, but I suspect that for example celebrating a terrorist act on television could be interpreted to be enticing, although I don't know if any judgement based on this law has ever been decided in a court of law.
tsiivola
6mo ago
When I look at something called Splenda Original Sweetener packets, I can see from the ingredients list that it contains dextrose, maltodextrin and sucralose. Dextrose is just sugar, (even the wikipedia page redirects to glucose), maltodextrin is another kind of sugar that may or may not get digested, and the ingredient mentioned last, sucralose, is the actual zero calorie sweetener. So it seems that the product called Splenda actually is mostly just sugar, with a tiny bit of super sweet sweetener added.
The lesson here is probably not that sweetness is subjective, but that you should read the ingredients list if you want to be careful about what you eat.
I would get a bag of something like pure stevia extract if you need something to sweeten your tea and really need zero calories.
tsiivola
6mo ago
A normal can of Pepsi has 40g of sugar. A can of diet pepsi has 0.124g of sweetener. Even if the sweetener has the same calories per weight, you would have to drink 300 times more of the diet version to get the same calories as the sugar version. What makes this possible is that per weight, the sweetener tastes much sweeter than sugar. The sweetness is the most relevant thing.
tsiivola
7mo ago
The point is that drinks sweetened with artificial sweeteners have 100 times less calories than drinks sweetened with sugar, because they have 100 times less of the sweetener. And 100 times less calories is so little that it can be rounded down to zero.
tsiivola
11mo ago
I oppose the idea that all "real science" is objective, since this fuels fields which are inhuman and which promote the inhuman as better than what's human. I'll even claim that most of the modern worlds problems is caused by designing society in a "rational" way which is actually incompatible with human nature.
I think the problem here is that since science has historically provided many obviously good things, a lot of people think that the word 'science' just means 'good things', so if you say that something is not science, to a lot of people it sounds like you are saying that it is not good. However, you don't need science to decide that you want your society to have public parks, sports stadiums, museums or hospitals. This is also probably the issue with social sciences. As long as people can claim that what social sciences are doing is science, it will sound to a lot of people that what they are doing is good. If you start asking what is it actually good for, people might stop to think and realize that the answer is "not much".
tsiivola
11mo ago
Noon-Is-Noon faction
Ironically, these are the same people who tend to be fans of SI (popularly "the metric system").
[...]Oh, so now you want to preserve a human-centric unit (like every system of measurement did before SI, metric or not) now that it affects you, rather than those backwards blue-collar people who do human-scale works with their hands?
Don't you have this backwards? The Noon-Is-Noon argument is that 0 hours should be at the time when the point on Earth comes to a phase in the rotation of the planet where the movement component towards the Sun becomes 0 and starts to increase again. That is, the Noon-Is-Noon argument is about the rotation of the planet, not about anything human-centric, whereas the perma-DST argument is about whatever schedule the person proposing it happens to have in their current job, etc.
tsiivola
11mo ago
If they truly felt guilty, then wouldn't they stop beating up Armenia? They've continued doing it to this day, they were helping Azerbaijan against Armenia in the recent war.
No. Feeling a certain way does not lead to the same behaviour in all cases. The feeling is an unpleasant stimulus and the behaviour it leads to depends on how you have learned to manage such unpleasant stimuli. Having a neighbour that constantly triggers the unpleasant feeling just by existing might well lead to holding a grudge for over a 100 years, if you are sufficiently immature as to being unable to see past the present moment. A more mature approach might be to realize that asking and receiving forgiveness resolves the issue now and forever and frees precious resources for something more useful.
If the Turks genuinely did not feel guilt they would say they drove away the Armenians and established a Turkish ethnostate, and are proud that they did, and not continue with obviously contradictory denials.
The armed burglar might say (if dragged into court or questioned by some third party) that of course he feels guilty and ashamed and it was society's fault and he was underage at the time and his friends made him do it and they had it coming anyway... But there is no sincerity in his words.
Perhaps you yourself have a somewhat immature point of view, as if playing a game of Sims or something. If the burglar says that they feel guilty, ashamed, are sorry and promise to not do it again, there is no sincer-o-meter that reveals if they "really" and "truly" mean it.
tsiivola
11mo ago
Furthermore, unlike with the Holocaust, Turkey isn't going to apologize. They won't pay reparations. They won't write it in their textbooks that this was a terrible shame on their civilization - they say that patriotic Turks need to be vigilant against all national security threats. There is no 'never again'. Only whites do this. The substantive differences are more important than the rhetorical differences. Talk is cheap, actions are costly. And it's only white countries that take costly actions to uphold concepts of guilt and moral virtue - consider the British anti-slavery work amongst other things. Nobody else would even consider 'giving back' the Elgin Marbles.
This seems just a difference in coping mechanisms. When the whites do something bad, they realize it will reflect poorly on them, and then try to correct it. When the Turks act impulsively and do something bad, they also wake up sober the next morning and realize it will reflect poorly on them, but instead of correcting things they somewhat immaturely retreat into a fantasy where it never happened and it also happened and was completely justified, which is a very obvious sign of guilt and shame to any intelligent observer.
At the 2016 White House Correspondents' Dinner president Barack Obama made the following remark:
"Eight years ago, I was a young man, full of idealism and vigor, and look at me now. I am gray and grizzled, just counting down the days 'til my death panel."
Do you think Obama was trying to expand the overton window to make more acceptable the idea that a panel of doctors would decide on the euthanization of non-productive or otherwise undesirable individuals? Do you think Obama's remark indicates that he and his group regard the idea of these "death panels" at least neutrally?
Or do you think that Obama was actually mocking his opponents and critics? That he considered the criticism so ridiculous in itself, that he did not even bother constructing a joke based on it, he just repeated the criticism verbatim while being fully confident that laughter would ensue?
Now, if it is the case that Obama was reminding everyone how ridiculous his opponents were just by repeating their words, then it could be the case that the people being ridiculed were fully aware that this is what was happening, and that there is no good way to defend against this kind of ridicule. And in this case someone who is being ridiculed could resort to lying, saying maybe something like "they told us they are not setting up these death panels, but here is Obama himself casually talking about them in an approving way!", and hoping that at least some people will believe the lie.
More options
Context Copy link