• 0 Posts
  • 66 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • True, and it upsets me because we can’t even get a baseline agreement from the masses to correct systemic inequality.

    …yet, simultaneously we’re investing academic effort into correcting symptoms spawned by the problem (that many believe doesn’t exist).

    To put this another way. Imagine you’re a car mechanic, someone brings you a 1980s vehicle, you diagnose that it is low on oil, and in response the customer says, “Oil isn’t real.” That’s an impasse, conversation not found, user too dumb to continue.

    I suppose to wrap up my whole message in one closing statement : people who deny systematic inequality are braindead and for whatever reason, they were on my mind while reading this article.

    I’ll be curious what they find out about removing these biases, how do we even define a racist-less model? We have nothing to compare it to… another tangent, nope, I’m done. Zz.



  • Nope, just relatively. Though how do you want to define consciousness could change my nope to a yes. It’s all about the definition.

    All I can see when I read this comment is a plaque to blind confidence. Don’t take it the wrong way, I don’t mean it as a wholly a bad thing… maybe 90% bad, 10% admiration. Confidence is powerful, but it works best when paired with other traits.

    …but back to the thread, unless you’re involved in this topic at an academic level, can you explain the reasoning behind the confidence you appear to have in your perspective?


  • Another one bites the dust.

    I admit it, I once assumed Elon was a genius.
    (events happen)
    Okay, not a genius, but a good businessman.
    (events happen)
    Okay, a bad businessman, a good PR person.
    (events happen)
    Okay, a bad PR person, but not a Nazi.
    (events happen)
    Well fuck, he’s a Nazi supporting conspiracy theorist.

    God damn, if I was that wrong about one person. I’m just gonna stop having opinions about famous people. It’s all smoke and mirrors.








  • It would be more accurate if you said, “This is not about right and wrong (for me).”

    If you say it’s not about right and wrong, dead stop, then you are pledging full faith to the institutions, the very ones we are critiquing.

    Basically, you are dismissing my opinion as misguided, dismissing me as missing the point and I am telling you it was expressed exactly as intended.

    In short, you are arguing on the wrong conceptual meta-level for me to respond without dismissing my own claim. If I take as True that “this isn’t about right and wrong” (it is), then I am setting aside the power I have in a democratic society to say, “Fuck this I’m changing it.” Maybe we’ve just been stuck in gridlock politics, with a ruling class that strips and monetizes every aspect of humanity that the society today doesn’t realize the power citizens wield.

    Not sure. Been fun to think and share thoughts with you though. Thanks for your time and have a nice night.

    An impasse is a perfectly acceptable outcome on a sane platform like Lemmy.


  • It’s a quote of an opinion, so in general I ignore them. I’m usually more interested in distilling ideas constructed with some line of reasoning.

    But I guess we can look at this one. Find it’s essence. Tho it doesn’t seem very deep…

    “Societies with rule of law are dictatorships. How leaders are selected and the existence of fundamental Constitutional rights is not a factor.”

    So in short.

    Having laws at all is a dictatorship.

    Yeah, that is one of the opinions I’d ignore. It’s easy to have that opinion inside the walls of a lawed society.

    Luckily it is valid to respond to an opinion with an opinion, and mine is that I imagine everyone (except the strongest with the most resources) would abandon that perspective as soon as they lived in a world with no laws.




  • “Because what is legal is always right.
    And what is right is always legal.”

    No?

    In a fascist state, your mindset is welcome, “Well they broke the rule, they must pay,” but do you never abstract one more level? Is the rule itself breaking something?

    Those who downvote you say yes. Nuance is important. The rule has two main affects that I see.

    1. Direct effect (the goal) :Publishers maintain a monopoly on bookselling low value books, the structure of their business preventing any competition.

    Okay lets think about #1. Is that good or bad?

    1. Indirect effect : the members of that society now have a restricted access to knowledge.

    Okay lets think about #2. Is that good or bad?

    Being critical in thought enough to recognize the flaws of the first quote is key.