• 2 Posts
  • 1K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: February 9th, 2025

help-circle




  • Surprised to see everyone dog piling on Ted in other comments. Marriages at that time weren’t often based on strong footing and we’ll never know exactly how they felt when they married or how their feelings changed throughout life.

    [Based only off of the summary] It’s easy to see Helen as a saint but it could just as easily be an unhealthy codependence. Chronic illness/pain/disability can completely erode a relationship over time. She pours more and more of herself into him without realizing (or denying) that there are aspects of a relationship that she can’t give. Doesn’t even have to be sexual, could be something as simple as a walk in the park or sharing a favorite meal outside her diet.


  • I feel like you’re writing “feds” but meaning “deep state [conspiracy that I’ve heard from looney red hats for years]”. I’m struggling to see what any domestic actor gains from fully dismantling the US economy, crippling basic necessities like food production, wasting military resources and burning every strategic ally on the world stage.

    The fed already had a free runway for a surveillance state since the Patriot Act passed, no need to go scorched earth to do something they were already well on their way to doing. Any old false flag event would do if you wanted to accelerate the process, why the total destruction of decades of Cold War power building? If there’s anyone fanning flames and pulling strings it could only logically be a foreign actor.





  • stickly@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneconsent rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    8 days ago

    Generally via public challenges and consent delivered to 3rd party witnesses (seconds) that could verify that the duel took place in an agreed upon manner. It was, in certain times and places, very legal and ritualized.

    The real reason is that it doesn’t actually settle disputes. It mostly serves as a nuclear option to elevate arguments, attack someone else’s character, or simply a legal loophole for violent sociopaths. See: this crazy example.


  • Ah yes, I forgot

    • …facts were determined by public opinion polls?
    • …that the Soviets definitely didn’t rely on wartime propaganda? Or maybe that official US and UK documents didn’t show officials conceding to support and amplify USSR propaganda in order to stabilize a fragile wartime cooperation?
    • …that people of war ravaged mainland Europe had a magical ability to fully digest and comprehend the largest war in human history a few months after it ended? Including contributions from continents on the other side of the world?
    • …that the general population of Europe in 1945 (many born in the 19th century; before planes, trucks, tanks; in an age where sailing ships still had value; before widespread use of even the basic machine gun) had a strong appreciation for the rapid advancement of military technology and the ballooning complexity of modern warfare? They certainly were doing a deeper analysis than looking at frontlines and death tolls.
    • …that they all had immediate access to the still highly classified documents on military technology, strategy and logistics? [Christ, May 1945 was still months before THE ATOMIC BOMBS were dropped…]
    • …that internal Nazi documents didn’t show a strong strategic reaction to the threat of US involvement, US & UK strategic bombing, and newly opened Allied fronts? Hitler was ordering troops away from the battle of Kursk toward Italy… just for fun I guess. The random French citizen clearly knew better.

    Wtf are we even trying to say here… Classic ML chart that masquerades as an argument ending bombshell but actually means fucking nothing.





  • You think your assessment that humans are a scourge on the planet is objective and clear

    Hold on, let me ask the 30,000 entire species we directly drive to extinction each year… 🦗

    Your argument is “yet you participate in society” but at an even more absurd “yet you are a human” level. Yes… they are a human. But if you look at human civilization through a POSIWID lens, it can’t be anything more than a self-destructive, mass-extinction and biosphere-collapse machine. That is, factually, 99% of the measurable impact of human existence (even if we survive forever and miraculously don’t make earth uninhabitable).

    The fact that millions or even billions of people can recognize this isn’t a magical trump card; your metacognition catch-22 doesn’t refute anything about the sound reasoning of the misanthrope world view.


    And for the record: I’m not a misanthrope. I more firmly believe that the existence or extinction of any species is entirely neutral. It’s not strictly rational to shed tears over the death of any individual animal or species.

    But I can also recognize and embrace my irrational bias as a human. It’s normal to mourn loss, or feel disgust at animal slaughter, or have diminished emotions for people physically remote & abstracted from my daily life, or crave creature comforts, or mistrust strangers… In contrast, subscribing to an ideology like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement requires forced, rational domination of these impulses. Nobody actually wants to end human civilization in the same way that the average person doesn’t want to starve.

    Optimizing for a universal and sustainable human existence isn’t about suppressing every flaw, it’s about focusing our time and energy on the most critical issues. I can still shout and scream about biosphere collapse because every extinct species has irreplaceable potential value. We obviously can’t live without pollinators, but it’s just as important that future generations will never be able to reconstruct the precise species that we evolved to cohabitate with.

    Preserving beautiful and complex ecosystems is a necessity because we don’t entirely know what [in]tangible value were losing for our selfish anthropocentric existence, not because any species “deserves” to live.


  • Original post: trump incorrectly claims a country that constantly launches missiles towards neighbors and had the world’s most recent nuclear bomb test is unthreatening and respectful, in part because he likes Kim Jong Un

    Top level comment: wow trump has ml user rhetoric

    Comment you replied to: yes, ml users hold irrational NK views in the same line as trump’s tweet

    You: wHaT aBoUt [USA] SaNcTiOnS??

    Nobody was talking about anything related to sanctions, let alone supporting them. You’ve been trying to drop this non sequiter all over the comment section. In your mind, every geopolitical conversation MUST be directed towards pwning the westoids; any opposition to USA hegemony absolves an actor of defects. That is what makes you a tankie.