Man, I hate identity politics. It really has been an extremely useful tool to get the wealthy to divide us so that we won't care about our own deliberate impoverishment.
At the same time, whenever someone is mean to my trans homies I want to punch them in the throat.
I legit had this stupid fucking argument with this moron who claimed that they should have the right to be intolerant. No dude, your rights end where your fist hits my face. People claim freedom we aren't completely free, we live in a society together. We agreed as a society that murder and assault are not allowed, and that could be considered curtailing "freedoms". These morons though don't see the nuance and just want to be racist pricks
Hear, hear! I mean, that moron has the right to be intolerant, but not to reshape society in their image. And they aren't free from the social consequences of their personal intolerance.
They did, and we're really up front about it being an opt-in thing, if I remember correctly. Might have started that easy with Microsoft, too. But they can't resist enshitifying.
It still does it. The only thing is that the awareness of this feature was spread in a way to make it sound like it was just stealing your internet for nothing (which looking at it one way, it was) so most people just turned it off.
Honestly that can be a good thing, especially if you have more than one windows PC in your household, it's only downloading them once then sharing the updates about over the LAN
90s: corporations make everything plastic and disposable while people are told to recycle
It's worse than that: the plastics industry tells us to recycle -- even going so far as to plagiarize the recycling symbol into the resin identification codes -- despite knowing from the beginning that recycling plastic was mostly never going to be a viable thing. They did this purely to shift blame to consumers because the only way their business model worked was to not be held accountable for their waste.
Recycling was actively brought forward as a solution by the oil companies to push the blame of plastic use onto consumers.
So while recycling rare metals is always valuable, plastic is definitely not. Almost all plastic gets buried in landfills, and the only way to make this not happen is to not make products with plastics.
By creating and marketing plastic recycling as a solution that the consumers must take onto themselves, it allowed them to rake in profits by moving everything to cheap plastic alternatives.
We are now literally made of microplastics as a result.
What I don't understand is why burning plastic waste and using the generated heat (for example for district heating) is not discussed more often.
I think recycling offers very little benefit over simple burning of plastics due to the amount of oil still being burned everywhere compared to the amount of oil used for plastic production.
I guess I'm surprised we don't do it but we all know that burning plastic is gonna end up directly in the lungs of some poor people who have to live by the pollution factory
If you don't need to, don't produce something. Chocolates don't need to be all individually wrapped inside of yet another wrapper. Transport should be mostly by public and active transport (though we also need better city planning to help enable this), and private motor vehicles can, at this point, mostly be converted to the less-polluting EVs. That kind of thing.
If it's been produced, rather than throwing it away, find ways to reuse it. Coke should be taking in glass bottles, washing them, and putting more coke back in it, rather than producing new bottles all the time.
If something has been produced and cannot be reused, we should try to find ways to recycle it. You're right that recycling is bad, but that's mainly true of plastics. Glass and paper are far more easy to recycle, if collected effectively. Which is also why the move from glass and paper products to plastic is such an environmental disaster, brought on because companies don't want to spend the larger cost of producing those products, or collecting them in to effectively recycle the glass.
This is absolutely right. It's reductive of me to say that recycling is bad for the environment; intentionally reductive.
People generally have a very hard time absorbing the fact that plastic recycling is a scam, so it's hard to start nuanced to actually get the point across.
But you definitely nailed it. I would argue that if it was reduce, reuse, revolt, the environment would be in a much better place.
Remember, small impressionable children, oligarchy and rigged market capitalism is the only way, everything else is evil and anti-freedom, and remember to compete against your fellow Americans to try to get more than them!
For our next lesson, critical thinking and reasoning! Just kidding, we don't do that here. It doesn't help to make you better laborers.
And now onto history, open your textbooks to page 33:
Most of that is believed to have happened or is so cloaked in mythos that any version is likely to be true if you're talking the American version.
Source, native. The women being there is the thing that's least likely to be true.
Nearly all of what historians have learned about one of the first Thanksgiving comes from a single eyewitness report: a letter written in December 1621 by Edward Winslow, one of the 100 or so people who sailed from England aboard the Mayflower in 1620 and founded Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. William Bradford, Plymouth’s governor in 1621, wrote briefly of the event in Of Plymouth Plantation, his history of the colony, but that was more than 20 years after the feast itself.
I've played DSP, it's a great game too. I'll probably jump back to that when I burn out on Planet Crafter. The thing I don't like about it and Satisfactory is conveyor belt management. The constant battle to rewire the spaghetti.
I often use UT, Q3 and CS 1.6 as examples of how long a game can stay active when players are given tools to setup their own servers, as opposed to companies handling multiplayer themselves (and often killing it off in a few years).
it kind of is, but its instinctual. you suddenly see your own childhood reflected from a new parental perspective, and you suddenly understand countless things you never did. you see yourself as part of a chain of parent/child stretching back a billion years.. you see unspeakable purpose in protecting and nurturing and loving and raising this floppy lump of screaming snot into a future lovable thing. they look like you, with the most innocent eyes, and they can not quite hold up their own head.
Or... that's the result of hormonal changes and the brain creating an excuse for the cognitive dissonance that results. It's an evolutionary trait to further propagation of the species, nothing more. Your mind tricking you into liking something because you created it. The human mind creates fantasies all the damned time typo cope with situations.
In a different context. Your abuser isn't that bad, they provide for you, give you a place to stay, and clearly care for you, just in their own way. Clearly they actually love you and you need to return those feelings to show your appreciation. The physical abuse is only a small punishment when you misbehave, you deserved it.
You seem to be under the impression that your opinion of a random meme and joke response comment on the internet is something we should care about. We don't know each other, this isn't Facebook, there's no reason to fake being nice on a site like this. I'll probably never see you again, your judgement of a random comment means very little to me. My original comment wasn't meant as any more than a bullshit joke comment, but since you want to make it more...
I never compared babies to abusers. I compared Stockholm Syndrome to the evolutionary mental and hormonal responses parents have for their progeny. They're both unconscious mental responses brought on by an external stimulus. An inconvenient comparison of course, but simple.
Back to the actual topic of the post... I don't think anyone's baby is cute, including yours, they're all ugly bloated sacks of skin. And no the baby's disproportionate features don't actually look like either parent at that age. You want it to be true and your mind is giving you what you want.
Yeah... I see where you're coming from, but... Just no. I'm a caregiver for my mother, and it's very similar to what others are talking about. Being responsible for someone you love can be a wonderful thing. If you don't want kids, don't have them, if you're not close to your parents, don't agree to be their caregiver. But that sort of familial love, knowing that you are doing what you can to make life as good as possible for another human is an amazing feeling, even when it's frustrating. Even if there are massive hormonal changes in parents when they have kids, which there are, it doesn't negate anything about the love they feel for their children. Babies are not manipulating you. Hormones help us form those bonds, but the bonds are real nonetheless.
I have (had- grew up) 3. They are cute - its a natural defense mechanism so we don't throw them in the bin when they are up at 3am for the 22nd night in a row.
Honestly, I didn't even like mine, to begin with. But they grew on me. The hormones had me tolerating all the craziness that small creature put me through.
Love 'em to bits now that they've grown past that stage!
You absolutely don't have to! Parenthood is not always an instant connection. I loved my child, sure, but they were more like a needy roommate to start off. I developed the bond as we went. It eventually clicked after some months.
And remember: you always love your child– but it's okay to have times where you just sometimes don't like them. Especially good to remember during the toddler stage!
Genetical in the sense that you are programmed to behave like that, not in the sense it has to be yours to prompt said response. Paternity fraud is no joke.
Or you need to identify those who aren't behaving properly (sickness or other resource intense disability) and should be outcast from the group (something we don't need to do today, but the right wing narrative insists that need to do)
I was thinking psychopath. Someone who tries to blend in and act normal but never quite gets it. We have no problem be horrors to other species, but early humans couldn’t afford a psychopath willing and wanting to kill their own tribe.
Psychopath is just Latin for mentally ill person. Someone suffering from depression is a "psychopath", and no, depressed people aren't dangerous. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Even though that's what the latin translation is, that's not what the word means. The definition is "Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality is a personality construct characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egocentric traits masked by superficial charm and the outward presence of apparent normality".
Okay, first of all: the DSM is used primarily in North America. The majority of the world uses ICDM.
Secondly, the DSM has gone through many iterations and changes. For instance, DSM-I and -II contained psychopathy as a mental illness. It was replaced by ASPD in DSM-III. What we term today as "major depressive disorder" was also introduced in DSM-III. Did depression not exist prior to the third DSM? Did ASPD not exist? Does psychopathy not exist now that it has been replaced by ASPD?
Thirdly, there's so much bloody overlap in conditions listed in the DSM that you could present two psychiatrists with the same list of symptoms and they would diagnose two different disorders. And to my mind, this lends more credence to the first DSM's principle classifications of psychotic, neurotic, and behavioural disorders.
To summarize, the DSM is regional and therefore cannot be applied globally. It describes medical conditions and those medical conditions can be redefined at any time. And it is borderline unreliable due to diagnostic confusion and overspecification. In short, the presence or lack thereof of some cluster of symptoms in the DSM is not an indicator of the existence of a condition.
The DSM removed it because it was fake. Early psychologists believed in it, and over time they were proven wrong, so the official materials were revised.
Actually, tribal humans tend to support people with disabilities, even severe ones. It's only feudal and capitalist societies that treat disabled people with cruelty. It isn't natural.
Harvey Birdman: Mr. Boo Boo, would you consider yourself a revolutionary?
Boo Boo: Well, no. But I believe corporations rob us of our dignity and independence, and that these systems must be ripped down, or levelled by any force necessary... But that's just one little bear's opinion.
Harvey Birdman: A cute, fuzzy little bear. (smiles at jury) The defense rests
Also, apparently there's an episode where Spacely and Cogswell are arguing about real estate and they discuss a rule of Orbit City which requires all buildings to be at least 2200 feet off the ground (I assume from their "bottom"), which would make their homes roughly the top floors of the Burj Khalifa
I still like the theory that the "mutants" below are just the Flintstones. The Jetson society hoarded all the technology and moved into the sky to get away from the peasants...
That’s true. He died of pancreatic cancer. Heavy alcohol use can lead to conditions such as chronic pancreatitis, which is known to increase pancreatic cancer risk. The largest associated cause of pancreatic cancer is food that is cooked until charred or blackened, which you won’t find much of at McDonald’s.
With that being said, don’t eat at McDonald’s. It’s terribly malnutritious, laden with chemical treatments, and sourced by forced prison slave labor.
A hidden path to America’s dinner tables begins here, at an unlikely source – a former Southern slave plantation that is now the country’s largest maximum-security prison.
One line in and already sounds like a horrible parody of the states that we'd call too on the nose
His method wasn't specifically about eating super-size, it was just that he ate nothing but McDonald's for a month (and probably a lot of booze according to various sources).
That's true, but that only amounted to 9 meals out of 90 over the month. It wasn't really the burning issue, just a knee jerk reaction to the title of the film.
I believe a school tested it with some volunteers, someone also challenged the original movie by eating a healthy amount of calories of just McDonald's food.
Spurlock also admitted to struggling with alcoholism. While reflecting on his sobriety journey, Spurlock told ABC News he had to start with himself, adding, "I wished I'd done it 10 years ago."
I've lost quite a few people to various addictions over the years. Only 1 to drinking.
Storytime if you're curious
That one still haunts me oftentimes (though not as much as it used to) about a decade later. They were my long-term boyfriend at the time and after our mutual long-term girlfriend passed away suddenly we both fell off the wagon hard.
I made it out the other side of the path of self destruction, they didn't.
And when they passed I fell even harder into alcoholism.
My wakeup call was when my doctor asked how many drinks I had per week and when I told him he had me go through the math right there for how I calculated it. It was over 300.
I was there because of some health issues that turned out to be liver problems.
I got sober a few months later.
Sobriety can be a real bitch to maintain at first but it gets easier the longer you're sober. Especially if you utilize the new found clarity of mind to address the causes of your addiction.
Nice! I'm not even at a full year and I'm like, damn if I'd known the dry life would be so much better I would've never started drinking. Physically/mentally/emotionally/(sexually) everything has just got better. Even things like singing and dancing (which I could barely bring myself to do after a full night of boozing) are better sober.
Replace many federal workers with those who are loyal only to the president
This is the key point that actually makes all this possible. From the wiki
It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of merit-based federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with loyal conservatives to further the objectives of the next Republican president.
"Tens of thousands". There is absolutely not enough young republicans in the nation to replace that many federal workers. The outcome if they fired them anyways would be orders of magnitude worse than the De-Ba'athification of Iraq. Its declaring class war on Northern Virginia and its a fight the GOP would lose.
I'm from there too. I could feel myself slowly becoming that type of libertarian shit head growing up until I moved away. Libertarianism is the only way you can rationalize all the bullshit you see around you and still remain in that environment.
It takes a severe level of willful ignorance to work for the MIC. They're so close to the contradictions at play that whenever you try to interrogate them on those contradictions they just short circuit in a way. Often they'll repeat some sort of aphorism.
I would genuinely cry. He is older than both of them and could literally run circles around them, both mentally and physically. I would 100% vote for Bernie and be fine with it. The vote for Biden is because the armpit of hell that I live in doesn't do ranked voting and Trump will wreck the planet. A rotting potato powering a computer core running ChatGPT left ignored on the resolute desk for 4 years would be a better alternative to these two fuckwits.
Seriously, why did they have to run Joe? If they had run someone in their 50's or 60's they would win on "well, he isn't as old as Trump" alone. If they had run someone under the age of 40 I imagine every leftist voter under the age of 50 would have been voting for them. The only reason "he's fucking old" doesn't stick to Trump is because he behaves like a horny 15 year old jacked up on cocaine and Twitter.
Yeah, because we have more than two parties, so a simple majority isn't automatically an absolute one. But if you group the far right with the increasingly far right "conservatives", it looks much more bleak.
But if you group the far right with the increasingly far right “conservatives”, it looks much more bleak.
we've been in that situation since the 1980's; our center-right and our far right are our only choices for president now.
i used to think europe's democracies were ahead since they carried on with progressive initiatives the americans stopped doing in the 1970's, but now i wonder if europe's lurch rightwards is them catching up to the americans.
don't listen to them; our systems beats theirs because you don't even need a majority to win over here thanks to the electoral college and gerrymandering. lol
Then cry. And then go knock doors and tell people why it's important to vote the way they should not because of one person, but for the future of the country and their own livelihood. Despair is only displaced by activism. All it takes for evil to succeed is for us to stand by and let it happen.
It is a pendulum, here in Sweden I know many people feeling disillusioned by the social democrats, combine that with ineffectual meassures against gang violence (often perpetuated by second generation migrant), where the perpetrators don't care about punnishment as it is quite mild.
Add to that that we have seen gangs and clans infiltrating the government at different levels, a few months ago two big news broke, one was that an employee at a court had let her criminal boyfriend sit at her computer using her access to go through classified documents, the other was that a student at the police academy had very close ties to gangs, to the point that it is assumed that they were tasked by the gang to join the police force and be a man on the inside.
Then we recently had a soldier who left his Ak5 complete with all parts in his car, against all regulations, when he was eating lunch, the car just happened to be burgled and the Ak5 rifle as well as a set of body armor was stolen.
It is assumed by most people that this was organized ahead of time, military vehicles have special number plates and are easily recognized, so he probably got paid to do this by a gang.
Then we have the dad who got shot a killed after asking a group of what was gabg members to behave as he was taking his son to the public pool, snd an altercation started, the dad was shot in the head and his 12 year old son called the police.
We also have some less recent major issues that had contributed to the rise of the right.
Incidents where young men from migrant families have been harrasing and even feeling up women, commonly at public pools.
Combine that with severe religious differences and some public pools have experimented with women only bathing hours.
Most of if not all of the above points have been related to migrants.
So it isn't that odd that when the left offer what is seen as weak policies and pushes for understanding of the perpetrator and the right just says "fuck them, we gave them food, a place to live, security, healthcare and what do we get back? Gang violence, disrespect and harrasment!", that people choose the right.
In my mind we need heavier punnishment, we need containment punnishments, way longer punnishments for those who are not interested in rehab which our justice system focuses on, after two times caught they need to get an automatic 10x the time normally given. If people are not interested in being part of a working society, then I'd rather they stay locked up.
While I don't agree with your conclusion/personal opinion of more repressive politics as the solution to this, I still want to thank and upvote you for explaining the situation and the resulting political climate in Sweden in a bit of detail.
IMHO, none of that justifies voting for far-right or even fascist parties (like the AfD over here in Germany), but I can absolutely understand the reasons why people do it.
Thank you, to be honest I have no idea if this would work, but it would keep these guy off the streets for far longer.
We give people a lot of chances here, but in the end, why keep doing it if they are not interested in rehabilitating themselves?
Sweden and Scandinavia as a whole put focus on rehab in prisons, so they get that, prison punnishment is meant to just be the incarseration, not the day to day life, that is supposed to be as normal as possible.
That is great! The problem happens when people just see it as a vacation, and refuse to learn.
Then I don't know what more to do other than making them uncomfortable for longer.
In my mind we need heavier punnishment, we need containment punnishments, way longer punnishments for those who are not interested in rehab which our justice system focuses on, after two times caught they need to get an automatic 10x the time normally given. If people are not interested in being part of a working society, then I’d rather they stay locked up.
we do that here; not only does it both not work well and allows people to profit from exacerbating it; it fixes a lot less and costs a lot more than treating it like a societal issue; changing policy; and aggressive outreach.
we've also had recidivism rates drop when convicts were given alternatives viable to their situation instead of focusing on the punishment.
I get what you are saying, but we allready have a prison system focusing on rehabilitation, and it doesn’t phase the gangs.
you'll never stop the gangs; but you can make it more difficult to operate if it becomes getting harder to find new gang members and less cost effective to retain the ones trapped in their sphere.
By increasing the length of prison sentences, we atleast keep them contained for longer.
that's what i meant by viable alternatives to their situation; no matter how long you contain them they eventually have to return to their situation and all at great cost.
If you have any other suggestion, please go ahead and tell me.
aggressive outreach is a more effective tactic at combating gangs
American here, our gangs primarily exist because the police do not benefit (and actively harm) minority communities, and the gangs offer what is essentially an alternative police force* for crimes that otherwise go unenforced and unreported. Is that not the reason for gangs in Sweden?
(Gangs in these categories historically include the Italian mafia in the US, the Gangs of New York, the Triads, the Crips & Bloods, and I'm sure I'm missing others)
I have no exact knowledge about why the gabgs appeared in Sweden, best I can say is the extreme culture clash between migrants and Swedes making them feel like outsiders.
Sweden in an extreme country with an extreme culture, where as other countries are far, far more religious and family oriented, we are far more individual and have a deeper connection to the government.
This is quite foreign to mugrants who have trouble understanding us, which makes them push further back against it.
To be clear, the main issue is the culture clash between Sweden and migrants from the middle east, we have a VERY different culture and relationship with the government.
The main issue as I see it is that Swedish culture is quite passive agressive, and we have not enforced our culture norms hard enough that they integrated into our society as well as possible, now people have talked about how we Swedes need to integrate ourselves into the migrant population.
Memes
Top
Dieses Magazin erhält keine Updates (letzte Aktivität vor 0 Tage(n)).