Leftists will already know that the democratic party leadership are conservative to vaguely center at best, hardly anything new
Leftists will already know that the democratic party leadership are conservative to vaguely center at best, hardly anything new
only in dentists dreams do children vote for toothpaste
Neither do I, as I’m a transhumanist, but that is pretty much irrelevant to this, because how on earth do one’s feelings about one’s species even have any bearing on this?
Even a non American citizen has a choice in this. If they aren’t American, they can’t vote, but people that can vote can be influenced by the words of others (otherwise, such trolls wouldn’t exist, after all, they’d have no point), and someone outside the country can still choose what to say.
I’m not really convinced that foreign operations are terribly active on a platform this small, or that these people truly are such an operation, but if for the sake of argument they are, and the user in question happens to be one, I’m not sure that non-engagement actually helps. “Don’t feed the trolls” is standard advice for dealing with traditional trolls, that are just out to make people mad and will move on if ignored. But a person being paid to shape the narrative isn’t going to just get bored and quit, they’re going to keep doing what they’re paid to do, and people are at some level influenced to align with ideas that they think are popular among the people around them, so letting them make a bunch of uncontested arguments still lets them shape a narrative through volume.
On a platform like this, that doesn’t have engagement algorithms that will boost the words of someone you interact with, I feel that it makes more sense to drown out trolls of the foreign kind, so that others who see them get the impression that what they say is not popular. One just has to keep in mind, if one truly believes that one is arguing with such a person, that your goal in arguing is no longer either to refine your ideas or convince the other person of yours, but to convince other people who see the argument of them.
No demon at all has created it; other humans have. You aren’t the sole person responsible for responding to it, but your actions will contribute to what happens next, non-action included.
You can say that this kind of situation implies someone else has done something wrong, leaving you holding the bag, and you’d be right, if nobody had done something wrong, we wouldn’t have a genocide to talk about in the first place- but saying that leaving you holding the moral bag was a wrong thing to do doesn’t change the fact that you are now holding that bag, along with all the rest of us. And about half of us (referring to the people of the US as a whole), if you haven’t noticed, have every desire of causing even more harm. “Neither” is simply not an option when failing to choose the least bad thing will result in someone else choosing the worse one. It’s not fair, it’s repulsive even, but the universe does not work in such a way as to ensure only fair moral choices exist. Morality is a thing we invented, the world doesn’t care about conforming to it.
Getting the best outcome you have with the bad options presented you matters more than whether or not you feel your own personal hands are clean- because metaphorically clean hands will not save the people of Palestine, and likely would doom some, and others elsewhere, that could have been saved. A clean feeling conscience bought by leaving people you could have helped to die is little more than a delusion of innocence.
Its kinda surprising to me that this seems to get some of them more defensive that some of his previous controversies, its not like Trump isnt known for racism. Best I can think of is that Puerto Rico is a US territory rather than a foreign country, but given how much it gets just kinda forgotten about in US politics, that doesnt feel like the right explanation.
to be fair, with the way he seems to be going, he might not be physically capable of doing something as presumably stressful as political campaigning in 4 years. And if he loses this, coming back in 4 years would also put him in the position of losing his party the election for 2 elections in a row. He’s got a cult following, sure, but a lot of the rest of the party might not want to go along with trying him yet again after such a thing. The worry for 4 years from now, if Harris can beat him this election, are all the followers of his that have gotten into national politics by being just as or even more crazy as he is.
“hey Google, download Firefox for me please.”
-“Im sorry Dave, I cant let you do that…”
Not really a fan of anime tho tbh, not my thing
The first bit of that is exactly what I was trying to say, indeed almost exactly the same as an example I considered giving but didn’t to avoid extra length, so we’re in agreement there.
The second, though, I think misses that there is a distinction between physical possibility and practical ability. In theory, it breaks no physical laws for me to become richer than Jeff Bezos by the end of next year. In practice, though, the fact that most pathways to achieving that level of wealth, especially quickly, involve a whole lot of luck on very low likelihood (but not impossible events), means that there is probably no sequence of actions that I can actively decide to take that stand any reasonable chance of me achieving it. There are technically sequences like “buy a lot of winning lottery tickets in a row” that might do it, but because they rely on abilities I don’t have (like knowing which tickets win in advance), I can’t actually attempt to take those paths.
Maybe, I suspect we’re just disagree on semantics without much meaningful difference, but I guess a simpler way of putting what I was saying is more “if you think that the “means” aren’t justified by the “ends” when all is said and done, then you haven’t actually achieved the “ends” at all, so if they would have been a good thing or not is now a moot point.”
I’ve always thought arguments about “do the ends justify the means”, or the somewhat rarer reverse form of “is x the right thing to do regardless of the consequences it has”, to be a bit of a false distinction. The means are part of the ends, and achieving some goal is the entire reason to take or not take any action. If you wish to achieve a certain end state, whatever state you end up with in the attempt includes the consequences of whatever you did to get there. If those consequences result in an end state that you find undesirable, then it doesn’t mean that your desired end state is actually bad, it means that what you desired is unachievable via that path. If you can’t find an end state that is likely to equal what you desire once those consequences are included in it, then it may just be that what you want is something that you are unable to achieve.
I would think of life as being ordered, yes. complicated, and with components small enough that we have a hard time envisioning it, but its not really much different from what you would get if you made a bunch of microscopic robots able to assemble more of themselves, and had them stick together to form a larger structure. We would probably imagine such things be made of something other than water and carbon chemistry, because when we make machines we usually use metal and silicon, but at the scale of cells where a component can be an individual molecule, carbon chemistry works well. I just think that we have poor intuition for what chaotic and ordered systems look like if the scale is beyond what we can see unaided.
Ive been varying my drawings a bit recently, but I mostly draw vore (not very well, but still), its a bit of a meme in that community that vore artists draw mouths and teeth with more detail than the rest of a character even without meaning to
why doesnt it make sense for a natural system? What do you expect a natural system to look like? As far as I can imagine, a universe that can be observed must display some consistent sent of mathematical rules (because any universe that did not, would be too chaotic to allow an ordered system like life to exist within it, and therefore all observers will find themselves existing within the limited ones), and a simulation is itself just executing a bunch of mathematical rules, and so any universe you can exist in will appear indistinguishable from a simulated one from the inside (unless the simulators do something specifically to reveal it).
for me that would be the teeth, considering what I draw. That being said, the stuff I actually show family tends to be things like fish, that dont really have anything like that to notice
It’s not that people expect the dems to suddenly change things, it’s that the republicans would make things much worse, and any action that stands a chance at actually changing things is more likely to work if you don’t have fascists in charge. It’s doing the same thing over and over in the same way that treading water to not drown is doing the same thing over and over; It doesn’t solve your predicament, but it’s also not something you can afford to stop
I’m honestly still skeptical of that, It seems to me like Lemmy would be too small to be an efficient use of a paid shill’s time, vs having them go to a mainstream social media platform. I think they’re either genuine in intent but have twisted themselves into a completely counterproductive idea of what to do out of anger at how things in the world have gone, or in some cases are people trolling for a position they don’t support, but who are doing it for free to advance their own position rather than for a paycheck.
This is why I keep one or two “normal” drawings saved to my phone
Aslan from the Narnia series is basically a feral fan-made fursona for Jesus