Sentrovasi

I think you’re free to believe what makes you happy :)

But making assumptions can be dangerous in science, and misconceptions, especially in the information age, can be very hard to disabuse. I’m happy for shows to not jump to conclusions just so twenty years later we’re not stuck with myths that may actually be harmful to how we understand the animals we all love.

There’s a difference between conservatism and regressivism, and as you yourself keep saying, the Republicans you see on the internet (your source, apparently) are not just being conservative.

Which again, begs the question of why you think you’re qualified to claim that this is some “truth”.

And again, I’m completely sympathetic to the idea that uncritical hatred and demonising of “the other side” leads to uncritical and one-sided ideas of the “truth”.

What I think you’re missing is the nuance that someone can consider both sides and still consider that one side is indefensible. The disqualification of the modern Republican from being “good people” does not mean that someone has not carefully thought through their stand.

Now about how you react to bad people: you can give them a chance to be good - the benefit of the doubt that they may not actually be standing for everything that being a modern Republican involves. But like I said previously, it might be a good time for those people to re-evaluate whether they actually are Republicans (an archaic term that has no real meaning today beyond a party affiliation) or feel like maybe it’s time to recognise something has gone deeply wrong.

If this God exists outside time, it would make sense since we may be unable to perceive these perturbations in time - it will just always have been that way.

Then that leads to the even bigger question of how you know that not all Republicans - at least, its uniquely American construction - are bad?

(If you mean to say that in your country, republican is a beautiful-smelling flower, then the answer to that is that in common internet discourse, it has come to mean the American GOP, and people who may be taking the hyperbolic stance that all Republicans are bad are talking specifically about those Republicans. Just FYI.)

And don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge supporter of the idea that increased polarisation and demonisation of the other side is only going to push people towards extreme positions and alienate those who only support a small number out of the basket of things that are in that box: things that may be necessary for their continued survival or way of life.

Nonetheless, given what the Republican party has begun to stand for more and more, with its wilful ignorance and inexplicable support for Trump, it is becoming increasingly indefensible to believe that people who will vote for that particular team, regardless of the consequences, are not basically complicit in evil.

I personally don’t think all Republicans are bad. But even the good ones have had years to consider if maybe they were the baddies. And if they recognise that there are deplorables among them, then maybe they shouldn’t take criticism towards the loudest of them so personally either. And consider moving away from the Republican brand.

Wait, if you’re a Republican and you’re admitting that Republican politicians don’t have critical thinking ability, then why are you still voting for having them run a country and affecting the livelihoods of millions (billions) of people?

If the only Republican policies you’re supporting are benign ones (as a non-American, I don’t know which those are), are they worth all the ones that oppress and take away the rights of others?

And if you’re a Republican but not a fan or voter of the Republican party as it stands, then maybe you need to reconsider what your definition of a Republican is, because Republicans themselves today are defining themselves in ever-bolder terms.

I think the older generation got used to the stereotype that if people were posting with emojis, they would naturally be making more immature posts (being younger). There are a lot more people from the older generation on the Fediverse.

For an example of this generational gap: you mention that “On Reddit people use emojis a lot” - that genuinely is not the experience on Reddit I had: when I still used Reddit frequently, emojis were treated with the same level of disdain (which both explains and is explained by the condescension around the Emoji Movie).

So you’re signalling that you’re from a certain generation and looking to appeal to people who are similarly from that generation of people who like to use emojis to express themselves. That’s going to attract some people and also going to rub others the wrong way. And that’s fine! Keep using your emojis. You just might want to remember that a lot of the people who hated new Reddit and a lot of the people who left Reddit for Lemmy the first time are/were going to be old-timers (by internet standards), so you might find fewer like-minded people here.

As a last note, your saying you “miss emojis” makes me feel extra old (and I don’t think I’m old at all!): it suggests that the time of emojis has not only eclipsed the internet culture I’m familiar with but has died out also. That’s two eras. It’s fortunate that at this current point in time, it seems like digital cultural eras can pass in weeks.

To be fair if the goal is understanding why, then even things like goods not being substitutable are useful for understanding. The OP wanted to know why, not know how to predict them accurately. The original suggestion to learn economics would teach them that.

I (charitably) think the fact is that they may also have misunderstood Cyberpunk to be more about hacking than it actually is, and are using “spy” despite a lot of CP2077 not being necessarily about remote hacking cameras at all.

They were quoting responses the OP has made to other replies in this post.

Fucks Pez!

They said they spent another hour after launching, though - not sure you can launch without having interacted with the Nomai statue.

It’s a burn and also true. If a genetic mutation becomes prevalent enough, it’s no longer really considered to be a “mutation”.

In case I was unclear, I meant it more as “people think that nothing can be done”. I was addressing the overall sentiment of many of these comments that seemed so betrayed that their constitution didn’t protect them from climate change.

I don’t think there is a constitutional right to not get hit by giant meteors either.

I think the need to peg action to constitutional rights is a very uniquely American thing. In most other countries a simple addition to the legislature might suffice, whereas here if it’s not in a constitution written many years before climate change became a popularly known thing, suddenly nothing can be done.

Then possibly something needs to change - add a new Amendment or something. But to claim that old laws written with an old understanding of how the world works needs to somehow carry the semantic weight of something it was never written to do seems a bit much.

There’s a reason people evolved altruistic reactions and tendencies, and that’s because on some level, altruism and trust in a community is good. How could anyone trust anyone else in a society where backstabbing is essentially the norm? Building giant projects like power plants could not exist without humongous inefficiencies if everyone were to constantly be trying to insure themselves from everyone else’s manipulation and making sure that they have a slice of the power pie and are not beholden to anyone else. If a society of Good people are all able to trust each other beyond any doubt (because Good people are inherently trustable), they can actually do insanely long-term plans knowing that those following them will continue to meet their obligations. Resources will be split more evenly ensuring maximisation and therefore a larger force.

Your example is also incredibly simplistic because nobody wins in a nuclear scenario, and that’s why Good would be opposed to it. It doesn’t mean they’re against other means of stopping the issue that don’t contravene international laws (which, by the way, would be 100% made by Good people because Evil people would have no reason to be a party to any of these treaties).

If nuclear war happens, everyone loses.

With conventional war, it’s a wash, but I’d give it to Good, with one side having harsher tactics (but also a chance of internal conflicts and opportunistic coups) while the other side has more resources but may only fight defensive wars.

With no war, Good wins - seems like a win for Good to me overall. The only problem is in real life it’s much harder to separate the Good from the Evil, and most people (myself included, probably) are somewhere in between.

I don’t think OP is guilty of this, but a lot of people think that current AI-generated content is going to sound like something that doesn’t know how to be human or what humour is. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding, I believe, that thinks that the LLMs that are popular now have any kind of actual sentience, and simply lack experience or understanding.

Fundamentally, they’ll instead sound like exactly the most average or boring (but informed) person, except maybe a bit more repetitive, because they’re trained on data and not coming up with independent thoughts. Someone who writes in a unique way and has a unique sense of humour is far less likely to be an AI than the average (yet somehow more accepted) everypost.

That’s not what second-hand smoking is. Smoking around others will cause them to suffer the negative effects of the smoke as well. This is especially bad around children.

Also, the argument that “it hurts no one but themselves” is a really weird one. Does you not wish the best for your loved one? If you saw your daughter or husband or wife hurting themselves, would it be “controlling” for you to try to get them to stop doing it?

As someone who skews quite far left ideologically but believes that people on both sides have been painted into polarised caricatures in each others’ minds by social media, I wholeheartedly agree.

When presenting the information to your girlfriend, please be completely honest and make sure to also show the Important Note that the researchers put at the front.

Important note: smoking may offer a limited degree of protection in some individuals against the development of a small number of diseases, outlined below. However, this information is of little relevance to public health, given that the amount of disease that tobacco may be said to prevent is insignificant in comparison with the far greater incidence of disease caused by smoking. Tobacco products kill one in two of their long-term users.

Half of long-term smokers die to smoking. Even if you think you can quit, the point of this study is to show that even having looked for benefits, they could only find a negligible amount of benefits compared to the harms of smoking.