Frequently they blame ““communist”” politicians for letting the immigrants in
GarbageShoot [he/him]
- 0 Posts
- 929 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: August 18th, 2022
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I see. I neglected an interpretation and it was important. So if someone says, for example and not necessarily making assertions about the OOP, that “I’m trans because I was born with a micropenis and that fuckin’ sucks,” your internal response would be “This person is trans, but doesn’t understand why they are trans.” [Or that it is likely that they don’t understand, and see what I said before about this implying it is true of some hypothetical people]
Is that a more fair representation of your view?
(I put this under the wrong comment at first somehow, but also I was partly using information from that one)
deleted by creator
We’re talking about an imagined person whose internality we have access to. If you acknowledge that, within the assumptions of your own ideology, there could be people that are “likely not trans”, that means essentially that there is an array of different possible stipulated people and some of them are trans, but most of them aren’t. Another way to put it is that, if you said you were “80% sure” that someone wasn’t trans that means, depending on certain unknown variables that actually determine the truth of that guess, there are 20 possible worlds where they are trans and 80 where they aren’t.
All this to say, based on what you expressed ideologically originally and even in your refutation, it is consistent to stipulate a self-identified trans person who you identify as not trans, even if you would never tell a person that in real life (out of respect, because it involves information you can’t access, etc.). Does that make sense? I feel like I got a little bogged down in adjectives, but I felt obliged to explain myself further given the “Excuse you”.
You can’t tell in the movie but in the script, all his lines and stage directions are written in greentext.
This very well may be fake, but it’s also entirely possible to identify as trans for any number of reasons. You might say such a person is “not really” trans but, supposing that is true, there’s no contradiction between that and some person who doesn’t have such ideological convictions having a thought process like you see in this image and acting on it.
That said, I agree that it’s probably fake, though I’m not as confident that the poster is a cis impersonator.
91·17 days agoThat’s a limp deflection. Is it really so difficult to not go around mocking people for typing errors like a 13-year-old?
Go back to Reddit
Whatever problems you might have with low-effort digital art, the two are not remotely comparable.
What, did you see the recent thread they had on Hexbear? They keep making threads about us, it’s very flattering
(Yeah, I’m pretty sure they’re all stupid ass libs except for some who might be more reactionary than that)
I should clarify that my position is that I use AD/BC in everyday speech, but if I had to actually publish something public facing, I certainly would use the CE/BCE system for the obvious reasons. My objection to you was not that using the system is bad, but that it’s a trivial thing and therefore (by my attempted implication) an annoying and pointless thing to try to “correct” someone on.
So I did actually read the link, and I didn’t know all of the history, but I did have pretty good familiarity with modern Discourse about it as the article outlines. I would say the only compelling addition is this:
Roman Catholic priest and writer on interfaith issues Raimon Panikkar argued that the BCE/CE usage is the less inclusive option since they are still using the Christian calendar numbers and forcing it on other nations. In 1993, the English-language expert Kenneth G. Wilson speculated a slippery slope scenario in his style guide that, “if we do end by casting aside the AD/BC convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system [that is, the method of numbering years] itself, given its Christian basis.”
I’d really like for the numbering system to change, so I suppose that’s an argument in favor of being annoying.
I’m aware of what it is. It’s still literally just the Christian calendar with different terminology.
It’s a silly way to secular-wash a Christian system. If you want a secular calendar, you should have it not oriented around the birth of Christ. Very underrated decision by the dprk to have their calendar based on the founding of the country.
21·29 days agoThey absolutely are, and many people would be excited to answer questions you have (including me, depending on the question). You just need to be careful not to come across as combative, because they’ll meet you in kind and it’ll be a dogpile.
c/askchapo , depending on the question
Don’t you know that Stalin owned the whole Soviet Union?!?
1·1 month agoI don’t see what the Zionist entity has to do with this, it’s not like they claim to be communist (though that would be a funny bit). I was talking about your reference to “dictator states” since Cuba surely is one of them, being communist.
I wish you wouldn’t believe what those very plutocrats you disavow tell you about Cuba.
52·1 month agoAnd fact is not subjective, opinion is, and you seem to lump them together
You say this about the comment in which I say:
In essence, it is a media consensus machine with some basic reading comprehension thrown in for people who can’t read English well enough to determine if a statement is, for example, an expression of the authors feelings or a statement on facts of the world.
Not to mention that “whether something is a fact or not” or, more commonly, “what is the most likely explanation for what we are seeing,” is typically not something you have practical access to, which is why you are reading about it, so what you are left with is not metaphysical truth, but testimony, which is very corruptible. I don’t just mean this as a hypothetical, I mean that most outlets engage in an aggressive battle over a small minority of mostly-social subjects while operating in complete or near-complete agreement on many important topics.
But even if we want to sidestep the issue of testimony mediating our access to metaphysical truth, there is still the question of which facts to include.
Low-hanging fruit:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-08-21/clinton-dnc-speech-harris-endorsement-joy
ctrl+f “epstein”: 0
ctrl+f “epstein”: 0
Seems like it’s missing important information that it could at least mention in passing about the subject of the piece, but maybe that’s just me. I guess it’s all relative.
And it uses primary sources for information verification, and those tend to be major outlets purely due to their size.
Like I alluded to in mentioning “circular citation”, very often news organizations aren’t doing anything resembling original research in their articles. They are just publishing what other articles already said.
But you are still missing that this is question-begging the correctness of the media, even though they have over and over been shown to be quite willing to work together to push atrocity propaganda and all kinds of nonsense.
The one is not the other