Bonus points if you can type it out as incomprehensibly as possible
What about mushrooms though? They count as vegetables in the grocery aisle but they're more closely related to humans than any fruit or veg.
It's definitely a culinary thing, same with the biological category of fish (for which there isn't anything scientific about it at all) is ultimately up to the cooks and fishermen exactly what constitutes fish.
You see, the fungoid brainpan lacks space for the "courage" and "honesty" lobes
Quirked up white boys goated with the sauce are directly responsible for us heading head long into an alternate pocket dimension of sand eating insects hell bent on inspecting pocket galaxies.
the concept of internet moderators and permanentish bans is ableist against autistic people
This is kind of true, but I think bans can be "decolonized" by removing the morality of them. If it's just treated as a stern notification to log off instead of a judgement of character, it becomes much less ableist and painful to experience.
I don't think any of my opinions are really :jesse-wtf: material here on Hexbear. But if someone asked me this in person or on FB, I'd definitely get that reaction.
Ever have a Betta fish as a kid? Probably kept it in a bowl way too small for it with no real decorations and it does after repeatedly swimming into the glass or swallowing rocks? Or a hamster that would gnaw on the bars at all hours of the night? Or know someone with a dog that they don't walk, resulting in it releasing that energy through destructive behaviour? This is because they don't have enough enrichment and variety, which causes them to adopt behaviours as a mechanism to get their energy out, and people generally don't know better bc the pet store employees tell you what they need to in order to sell a specific product. This can be fixed by providing them with enrichment: a variety of different experiences, housing more suitable to the animals needs, things to do for fun, etc
Humans under capitalism are neglected pets in the fish bowl of society
This is a proven fact everyone agrees with
0/10 :jesse-wtf:
Check the John B Calhoun experiments to laugh at some racist and homophobic bad science that is strangley ignored by right wingers, despite their fixation in other pseudosciences, bad interpretations or just made up shit
Cosmically, there is an underlying meta-biological battle going on between fucking and cumming, and it lines up along political ideologies. Gorilla or bonobo? Duck or pig? We stand close by the inflection point.
I think capital is, in a rather real sense, the evil AI, the demiurge, and or Satan that all the Rationalists, weirdos, and or Evangelicals are worried about.
Capital is the paperclip maximizer tech bros worry about but about profit instead of paperclips
Literally true. Rationalists are some of the most ideologically inconsistent people on the planet.
That's pretty good. I wholly agree that the people comparable to "meta-gamers" are the same type of people who are ruining the fucking planet, largely by harnessing/weaponizing capitalism.
The religious stuff is interesting and I follow it, I guess you're arguing that it was a synthesis of emergent capitalism and the religious foundations that it had to reconcile with - at this point I guess it just seems superfluous but perhaps that is just me being very alienated from the religious communities.
When I've been constructing games there are always those who seek to dominate by bending/breaking the rules which were clearly intended to foster the "balance" of said game. These people are useful for refining rules/mechanisms to a point which properly contains them. At no point should these monstrous individuals not be contained - I think this is one of the many tasks set before socialism.
I pretty much entirely agree but I don't think it started with Calvinism. At least if I'm understanding you correctly, Calvinism may have been an intensification of this in the West but this gameification of religion can be seen all over the place. Such as anywhere where there's a divine right of kings sort of situation and the subsequent hoarding of wealth and the hierarchies that necessitates. And that can be found not only in Catholicism going much farther back but religions all over the world.
Calvinism was a very important theoretical development in Christianity and western religion and western philosophy. It's really solidified the belief that good things happen to people because god loves them and bad things happen to people because they're sinners. Before that the dominating view was that everyone was a sinner together. Calvinism is fundamental to the development of Capitalism because it's when the predominant religious and philosophical belief came to be "Fuck you poors I got mine because god loved me". Wealth was no longer seen as a bad thing but in fact viewed as proof that you were literally chosen by god. And since you were chosen by god anything you did was by definition righteous, and your continued accumulation of wealth was proof. Not to say Europe didn't exploit a whole lot of horrors before Calvinism, but Calvinism was none the less a key change in how European society thought and functioned.
Saint and Calvanism are very different. You pray to saints so your ship doesn't sink or you find your shoes or your cows don't get sick. In Calvanism you pray because god predestined you to be wealthy and powerful and people who are chosen by god pray, so you pray to close that self-fulfilling loop.
This is a pretty mainstream view by a lot of historians of religion and historians of American religion especially.
It's on the Chapo YouTube, Matt just rambles about whatever but one of his big theses involves the relationship of Calvinism to capitalism and how much it's fucked us
I think that businesses all more-or-less are predicated on the cultivation of a human addiction/dependence structure. I think addiction isn't something that some people suffer from while others don't (per se) but more of an innate human feature which guides us towards repetition based on what evolution has coded into our instincts. Addiction takes wildly different forms in each person but everyone is a slave to their addictions; for most people it is just addiction to convenience and entertainment, others caffeine, others alcohol, others adrenaline, etc. The merchant class were the people who recognized this and learned to profit immensely from being the enablers of the addictions, whatever their forms. We can see this with companies that run at a loss when they first emerge, similar to drug dealers passing out samples, they plant the seeds for addiction and once you are hooked they can begin to harvest profits.
In such a society it is those who hedge their addictions through self-denial that are able to wrest the most control. Through experience the people who best avoid addiction are those who view pleasure with extreme skepticism as a general rule. But a society that revolves around this is one which necessitates an infantilized, helpless population.
Proposed solution: Seize the means of production
yeah a lot of human activity seems to just be the pursuit of pleasure (carrot) and the avoidance of pain (stick).
I think a person needs to properly internalize that thought to escape the cycle - but habit-forming addictions (especially those that culminate in physical withdrawal) can be insurmountable hurdles for individuals to conquer
I absolutely agree with this. Capitalism is built on the three Ps - Poison, Propaganda, and Ponzi schemes. The Anglo-American empire has elevated all 3 to their ultimate form.
Having to abstain from pleasure to a degree that is considered odd by everyone around you is very frustrating. Being human sucks.
Were you implying that the bourgeoisie tend to come from the families of those that originally abstained from pleasure? Because that could at least explain why Jeff Bezos sits on a massive pile of gold when using it to equalize humanity would probably make him happier.
Not necessarily but I do think that there is a cult of self-denial that is passed down purposefully through the generations. I don't think the amount of "tee-totalers" (or w/e they are called) among the bourgeoisie is a coincidence; I think they view addictions as a liability if not a weakness.
And sadly, I think they are right about it being a huge liability. It has a delegitimizing effect in what is this so-called "meritocracy".
Well, materially this still results in communists having to overcome their addictions to organize. Maybe. I don't know, theory is confusing.
Lenin/Mao agreed
The fight against addiction is one of the major tasks of the proletariat. Liberalism's inability to deal with rampant addiction is for the same reason it is unable to dispel widespread poverty - a lack of political will; disasters are opportunities for profit within capitalism AND such things are disorganizing forces cast on the working class.
I think they meant from an drug/substance abuse perspective and not "everything is an addiction" perspective. I'm unsure if we're going to be able to get people to give up fiction books entirely, for instance.
"We are not here to tell them what they want- We are here to tell them how to get it."
Greek mythology is made up of people just orally posting their cool new fanfiction stories.
I don't think this one is downright psychotic compared to some of these here, but I am somewhat coming around to this idea which I have never been able to express elsewhere; I believe that we must be very careful what depictions/stereotypes we apply to men -- whether progressively feminist or traditionally conservative -- not only for the sake of men but because we apply them to trans women 10x worse. It's partly why I dislike the level of self-flagellation I've occasionally encountered in progressive men, and the way that some trans women virulently shittalk men. (As example, I saw an amusing comment chain recently where a trans woman peddled in the typical dehumanizing analogy that 'men are like loaded guns and you don't know which one will go off', utterly ignorant to that TERFs think the very same of her.)
Now, certainly, men are more conservative than women and are less accepting of transgender people; these are facts and are understandable reasons, even if that should not constitute hatred of any but conservative men. But allow me to expand and show better what I mean.
There's several reasons I am slowly coming around to this take, but the most recent that I found was in remembrance of an old ContraPoints controversy. Now, I will not shittalk her here -- she is in a very difficult position as a public trans woman and I hope she does well. I think some people do not understand the utter frustration that living life as a trans woman often engenders, and how this causes behaviors that appear outwardly overly-callused; it is extremely frustrating knowing that from the time you come out, you will essentially always need to try at least 2-3x as hard as a cisgender person to get the same results. You can do it, but it's still fundamentally bullshit.
But I remember a tweet ContraPoints made once where she essentially said that one ought to have a good reason why they identify as non-binary, because 'surely a story that begins and ends at "I'm not a man" just isn't convincing'. (Paraphrasing.)
While certainly dismissive of non-binary identity -- no one needs a reason to identify as NB -- what I found rather interesting is not what she said but in how she phrased it; that you need a better reason than merely I'm not a man. The wording implies that maleness is a sort of deserved punishment or a sin that one would naturally seek escape from, thus we must make sure they do not escape without proper reason. A common TERF argument is that transgender women identify out of manhood to escape punishment and that transgender men identify out of womanhood because being a woman is such a terrible existence, that one would be crazy to not wish to escape it. (Few point out the irony in that many TERFs utterly despise being women, whereas trans women generally love being women.)
And I highly doubt ContraPoints would have phrased the tweet as "surely you need a better reason than I'm not a woman", partially because her audience would have raked her even more fiercely for it, but because ContraPoints herself has certainly struggled with self-loathing in some areas. I am almost certain that she has encountered the typically vicious arguments transgender women have amongst themselves, and are occasionally expected to self-flagellate over, about whether they have experienced a 'male socialization', a 'female socialization', or perhaps a 'transgender socialization'; I am certain ContraPoints has once, as many transgender women have, viciously interrogated her own behavior and tried to scrub away any behavior she perceives as 'male'. (Of course, no behavior is truly gendered, which is precisely the hell of it; one can never truly be free and the anxiety, ala the factory in Factorio, 'must grow'.)
Now, I will not add to that idiotic debate by giving credence to any part of it. What I will say is that it is a rather curious debate, in that the only people who pick 'male socialization' are those usually enthralled in the grip of some self-loathing themselves. The answer, much like a trial on Cardassia, is decided before the debate. But no one once asks whether there should be any shame to having had a male socialization -- it certainly does not diminish one's gender by any iota! -- because the unstated assumption is that men are taught to abuse, to rape, to murder women, that a male socialization is something one should be ashamed of. Even the realm of identity is not safe; some transgender men report feeling guilty over transitioning, as if they have transitioned to the evil side of an intangible war and hate 'inflicting' themselves upon women by dating them.
That is not explainable by mere voting patterns.
But, of course, when no one questions the unstated assumption, the entire debate acts a little like navigating at sea using Ptolemy's insights; you may certainly dock that ship, but you will never truly understand the issue. (For example, that no one ever points out that more men support a hypothetical wife beating her husband than a husband beating his wife -- that men murder each other & themselves far more than they do women, with male suicides outnumbering female murder victims by 10x and are always more lethal regardless of method -- and, the most obvious and simplistic one, that a socialization in which you are told every day from age 3 to "never, ever hit a girl" is rather difficult to term a misogynistic socialization that accepts abuse against women -- well, all interesting insights yet perpetually unexamined.)
Anyway, this has already gone far too long, so I'll close by saying all love to trans people. I don't terribly know the solution for all of these things, merely that it seems occasionally to me that there are some damaging ideas that have snaked into many good-intentioned people's skulls, and yet, oftentimes, in trans people, seems merely to be a politically-acceptable method of self-harm; a form of politics that lives as a personal torturer in one's skull.
Consider crossposting this to c/effort and c/menby, this is a good post.
So what you're saying is the agricultural revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race?
IMO Garden of Eden myth is really a story about being eternally ejected from the innocent harmony of pre-agricultural life. Prometheus and other similar mythical figures gesture to it as well
The real reason agriculture is the human original sin isn't because we don't want to go back, it's because those that don't become much more powerful and can displace those that do go back. Same for agriculture, and all technology in general.
We can't go back. The total carrying capacity of the planet without agriculture is a few tens of millions of people. Pretty much everyone would have to die to for a non-agricultural economy to be sustainable.
I lurked on a forum in 2009 where someone had an avatar with 4 quadrants, Low Tech Low Command, Low Tech High Command, High Tech High Command, High Tech Low Command. Their purported arrow of history moved through these stages in that order.
sea travel is fucking magic you read boats speeds being much slower than land vehicles yet somehow boats get places crazy fast over the vastest expanses possible
you're really gonna tell me a cargoship that can't even hit 30mph is crossing the pacific fucking ocean in 15-30 days ?(and why is it so variable? :thonk: )
theres something fishy going on man, idk what it is, a sea-god or a sea-cult that all the sailors make offerings to and be gay for
Sea water is salty because all of the fish fucking.
Still think drinking sea water is cool? Think again.
also theres these boats now that are powered entirely by the wind but can actually go like twice as fast as the wind is going, you cant tell me that isnt sorcery
With the right sails you can sail as close as I think 20 or 30 degrees of the wind. So not quite straight in the wind, but not far off.
It's not, because you're reducing the kinetic energy of the wind, so it's fine. It's still wildly counterintuitive lmao
Nope. the windmill on the deck is driving a turbine which is either driving a propeller directly or driving a generator that drives a propeller. The wind isn't pushing the ship, it's just spinning the wind mill, and the prop is pushing the ship.
It's hydrodynamics and it's fucking boss. I don't understand any of it, except in a very vague intuitive "That drawing makes sense" way.
the wind at a 90 degree angle to the boats direction of movement can still add momentum to the boat, but does not cancel out to a relative speed of zero as a wind directly behind would. the margins are slim so theres a shitload of drag mitigating features like hydrofoils that lift almost all of the boat out of the water.
15 x 24 x 30 = like 10,000 or something, or a little less than half way around the globe.
witchcraft. falsehood! you won't fool me you siren of the sea!
they go through the night where a car would pull over at a rest stop for half the time, also the time variation is weather, having to fight wind and current will slow you down, and in really bad storms youre more focused on getting over the next wave than making headway to your destination
This isn't :jesse-wtf: Foucalt wrote an entire book about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish
Prisons, factories, offices, and schools are all set up on similar lines for similar reasons. Hell, the high-school built the year after I left even had pods and guardposts directly inspired by prison designs so the student could be observed by security at all times and quickly isolated from each other if the administration wanted to.
Already-pop philosphy by your favourite lolbertarian
1/10 :jesse-wtf: might confuse some boomer
