• 0 Posts
  • 41 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 9th, 2024

help-circle
  • I see what you mean. However, it was at no point my intention to equate the severity of those two different contexts. But given your interpretation, I understand why you found it to be a ridiculous comparison. I just wanted to highlight that even seemingly harmless things can become a tool for harming someone regardless of the actual severity. Sorry if that wasn’t clear enough before.

    Given that this protest is performed by adults and not 5 year olds, and assuming that they are not shy about their hostility towards tourists, I would argue that the severity of such an confrontation can linger for a while with someone. I am absolutely sure that this would keep my mind busy for a while if it were to happen to me or those close to me. Therefore, I would rank this higher in terms of severity than a child being silly. (Of course it would be no match with being bullied.)

    my response was to demean the overdramatic use of the word “attacked”.

    Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t interpret the wording in such a dramatic manner like you did. I’ve seen it in a more general, abstract manner. Not in a way that would motivate me to call the police, no. Almost like the phrasing “verbal attack”, which is also understood rather lightly. It seems this is why we’ve got into this misunderstanding. So thank you for clarifying this. :)


  • How so?

    It illustrates the hostility experienced by the target. It’s just water, which is by itself harmless.

    But:

    In the one case it is a demeaning gesture by bullies, which does imply so much more than “just water”.

    In the other case it is experiencing aggression, possibly being shouted at or insulted, which also causes more than “just water”.

    How would you feel?

    You plan a trip to the city, with your partner and kids. And then you come accross angry people who tell you to fuck off while shooting at you and your family with water pistols.

    Would you feel the same way about this as if it was just raining?

    To me, and probably a lot of people, this is certainly another and far more hostile experience, which is also not a pleasant one.


















  • They literally said:

    Perpetual growth in a finite system is impossible

    I don’t see how your comment applies to that.

    Knowlegde growth may be sustainable, but it is also impossible to grow forever. (Supposing knowlegde is finite, which is, as far as I see it, the case as long as we make the definition of knowledge depend on characteristics like repition-free and new. For example, you could learn the number pi to even longer lenghts forever, but doing that is not necessarily something new to know as it’s just a manifestation of a repition which was already discovered.)

    I’m intrigued how you would explain that economies could grow independently of resources. From my perspective, it looks a lot like each and every form of economy relies somehow on some form of resource or resources. As resources are finite, economies can’t grow forever.