Sorry to disappoint, I meant I learned the story behind the myth of vaccines causing autism. They seemed to be pretty good parents, before they moved away their kid was often outside on his bike… He seemed happy and healthy to me.
We had a significant age gap so we never interacted, but he was on the sidewalk frequently and never in the street when I was driving… Take from that what you will
Oh, that would fit in my model perfectly. Because it’s another world… Obviously. My model isn’t disproven if I wake up in another world, my model is just physically removed from my new world. Universal things still apply until they don’t, but there’s no conflict
If global warming hits 2.5C then flips around to an ice age…I don’t understand it, but it’s happened. My old observations aren’t disproven, new ones disprove the theories around them
Squaring that circle would take effort, but if it’s true it’s true, and truth sometimes takes time to understand
Hide your wife, hide your kids, and hide your husband too because they’re raping everybody out there
There’s too many beans stories and search sucks these days… I just went on a tangent and read my daily limit of green texts
It is fun to know there’s a story out there I’ve yet to come across though, I’m sure I’ll stumble upon it someday
This isn’t real, you’re just baiting because it’s lemmy… Right? …Right?
Sure. If it fills a gap in my model, I don’t need any proof at all. Why would I? It just makes sense. Of course I’m going to tentatively fit it in
And if a study convincingly disproves it, I’ll just as quickly discard the tentative idea. Why wouldn’t I? It made sense, but it didn’t math out.
But this is all in the context of my model. It’s a big web of corroboration
You can’t convince me global warming isn’t happening, because I’m watching it in real time. No amount of studies are doing to do more than inform the facts of my lived experience… I’m the primary source, I was there
No? I don’t care if the whole world is wrong, some evidence is strong enough to convince me forever, even if it’s subjective
Quality is all that matters. One incontrovertible fact I can poke and prod myself means more than millions of subjective accounts. Or even all of science - I’ll rearrange my entire model around a new fact if it’s compelling enough
I have a model of everything. Everything I am, my understanding of the world, it all fits together like a web. New ideas fit by their relationship to what I already know - maybe I’m missing nodes to fit it in and I can’t accept it
If it fits the model well, I’ll tentatively accept it without any evidence. If it conflicts with my model, I’ll need enough proof to outweigh the parts it conflicts with. It has to be enough to displace the past evidence
In practice, this usually works pretty well. I handle new concepts well. But if you feed me something that fits… Well, I’ll believe it until there’s a contradiction
Like my neighbors (as a teen) told me their kid had a predisposition for autism, and the load on his immune system from too many vaccines as once caused him to be nonverbal. That made sense, that’s a coherent interaction of processes I knew a bit about. My parents were there and didn’t challenge it at the time
Then, someone scoffing and walking away at bringing it up made me look it up. It made sense, but the evidence didn’t support it at all. So my mind was changed with seconds of research, because a story is less evidence than a study (it wasn’t until years later that I learned the full story behind that)
On the other hand, today someone with decades more experience on a system was adamant I was wrong about an intermittent bug. I’m still convinced I’m right, but I have no evidence… We spent an hour doing experiments, I realized the experiments couldn’t prove it one way or the other, I explained that and by the end he was convinced.
It’s not the amount of evidence, it’s the quality of it.
How about: they’re a major factor in the rise of post truth and in ruining the Internet. And in hacking democracy itself
Their control is endangering the human race. They’ve crushed countless innovations to keep a stranglehold on technology. They proactively helped fascists get into power
They don’t deserve to make ever increasing money off us. They’re not content creators - they’re bad stewards of a public forum they bought and expanded through monopolistic practices.
I’d say it’s not only moral to deny them ad revenue, I think watching their ads is a danger to society
Why bother… Does the truth even matter at this point?
No, they do. They don’t die, but they lose their current life
See, I came prepared. I actually knew what the Mona Lisa looked like already
And so when I came to see the Mona Lisa, I came to see the madness surrounding a tiny, kind of mid painting
I didn’t look past that, it’s the whole point
It’s a shitty people becoming better. But it’s a people trying to be better. It’s people who believe they are better, and when it’s pointed out to them that they’re actually assholes they’re humbled enough to listen to the person calling them out. They glorified them as wise men blessed by their god
They were proud of themselves for treating their slaves better than the civilizations around them, they prided themselves on being conflicted about going to war. These are good things… But you’re not supposed to copy them. You’re not supposed to go back.
You’re supposed to also strive to be better
No no no… It’s not democracy, it’s abstraction
Democracy would be a worker owned business. Where the people who do the thing decide how it should be done. And it’s great, it makes sense, it’s ethical, and the decisions are made democratically by the most informed people
Stock markets don’t work like that. At one point you had voting, but now it’s all speculation and layers of abstraction
Do you think the shareholders know or care how the business is being run? No, they just want line go up, because they’ve got a dozen other places to shift the money to if it’s not going up fast enough
They don’t know or care if the company is dumping chemicals into the lake until the rest of us do. They don’t know that the cars are dangerous, but it was cheaper to set aside money for damages.
They aren’t part of the company at all - they have no responsibility for what the company does. They have no control… Except, collectively. Maybe they could join together to replace a board member or sell to lower the price negligably. And the board has a responsibility to the shareholders. And the CEO just listens to the same consultant the shareholders do
So really, it’s no one’s fault.
Chick fila donates to hate groups, but they also front the money for new franchise owners. Costco pays well. Arizona iced tea doesn’t raise their prices because they have no debt and the guy says he’s making enough money.
Yes, you’re going to have shit heads and good people… But as bad as my pillow guy is I’d be shocked if he was knowingly poisoning people… That usually weighs on a person’s conscience, but not so much if they can diffuse the responsibility
It made me a leftist lol.
The old testament is all about a people who keep fucking up by adopting the shitty practices of the people around them, then being shamed into being better for a while. And then the person who called them out dies or leaves… But if they stay they get too comfortable with power and abuse it. Some of them are assholes the whole way through… It’s about history and notable figures, it’s not aspirational at all
Then the gospels are a how to guide to living under an occupying state.
No temples, we just share meals now. No relics, water is holy now. No leaders, we all serve each other. No money, no stock piles, no rich people - let the tax man have nothing to take. No open resistance to invite a crackdown, instead we’re going to just be really, really obnoxious to deal with through third path shit
It worked so well Rome straight up massacred the communes to stop the spread, and it was still spreading underground until Constantine slapped Jesus branding on the Roman religion.
Finally, I’m not sure what Revelations is about, but it has cool imagery
The Bible really hits different when you don’t have someone explaining each passage one by one going “oh, that wasn’t mutual aid, that was magic”
She married into it, that’s how she inherited it. I’m not even making a moral stance on exploitation - I’m saying that to be a billionaire, to continue to exist as one, you become an avatar for your hoard
Every sane billionaire is living like a normal person. They’re working the job they love, living in a nice but practical house, and no one (sometimes not even their spouse or children) knows their bank account is endless
I’m not dying on a hill for her or against her. She’s free to do all the good things she likes. I hope she does. I’m not going to interrupt someone doing something I agree with
But she’s still a fucking dragon. Make no mistake. Let her do all the good things in the world, but if the winds change and her hoard is threatened she’ll turn on you. Never forget that
Yes. Unambigiously.
What would you rather have, one person with a ton of power making decisions, or abstract it out over a group and diffuse all responsibility?
Both are bad, but one of them has a (likely not morally great) person at the top, the other has lots of robber barons sharing ownership and collectively demanding line go up
A person isn’t usually dumb enough to fire half their workforce, because they know their bread and butter comes from that workforce. A consulting company advising the business and shareholders at the same time can easily do such stupidity for short term profits
I mean, some of them knew it was coming and lost their phones, but I don’t find it too surprising. Are you really going to risk serious consequences because you got activated when you shouldn’t have been?
Report for duty and let your chain of command fight it out. It’s not up to the guard members to work out the legality of their deployment
Now, if they start telling you to perform violence on civilians, that’s when you can take a stand and refuse orders. And so far, that hasn’t happened
I think they’re doing well. I haven’t seen them raise a finger to the protesters, they just stand there in a line calmly. The protesters are great with them too, they just keep yelling “you should be over here with us”. And with any luck, the courts will give them back to the governor so they can go home before they have to make a hard choice
I never said white genocide. That’s the problem here - you’re talking just like a fascist, but from a position of the oppressed. Which is to say, you’re talking just like a fascist
You’re talking about taking the land (soil) back for the indigenous people (blood). You’re not talking about benefiting people. You’re not talking about fixing problems and making life better.
Just taking. Take our county back. Take our land back. Drive out the invaders. Sound familiar?
The thought “white genocide” genuinely never crossed my mind in all of this. Because I’m not a fascist. I just know when you combine racial lines and fascism, you’re talking ethno-state, which always means genocide. In this case, who gets genocided? Everyone but the in-group, starting with the most disadvantaged and physically identifiable and working inwards from there.
Instead I think of just people, all living in an oppressive system. I don’t care that some are less oppressed, I don’t care about what was taken from people generations ago or who “deserves” the land. I care about reducing the oppression. Human dignity.
Not what we can take, what we can give and what must be taken to give that to the people. All the people.
You’re framing this just like the Nazis do, it doesn’t matter if you flip the “in group” to be a minority or more oppressed group. You’re still using the same framework, which there is a descriptive term for: Fascism
I mean… That is how this works. Cluster bombs are bad because they’re less precise and cause more collateral damage. So weapons that target individuals with high precision are better
But like… Presumably, you’re not just individually killing a bunch of civilians precisely