Windex007
@Windex007@lemmy.world
- Comment on What a great idea 3 days ago:
It’s incredibly one dimensional to say that people wanting to shop in a place where patrons extend basic human decency to one another would be only be popular because people want to … crush the poor.
If your only cognitive tool is a hammer, ever idea is going to sound like a nail.
I feel like you think I’m not understanding your position. I am. I hear it ad nauseum.
I’m challenging you to consider if your approach is so narrow that you can’t even comprehend the premise. “I don’t want to get mashed up by a cart” necessarily translating to “I want to suppress the poor” should be setting off warning alarms that you’re not engaging in the idea or discussion with a full toolset.
- Comment on What a great idea 3 days ago:
I could get behind you on this if the post was saying that all grocery stores must have that limitation. In the subway example, it’d be like saying that the only labour that exists is being a subway driver. The calculus changes when, like you said, it’s mandatory.
- Comment on What a great idea 3 days ago:
Oh my god I’m still stewing over that exact same post. It’s been like a week.
- Comment on What a great idea 3 days ago:
Fine. The person operating the subway train. Should they be drunk? Should they have needed to demonstrate competency in operating a subway?
- Comment on What a great idea 3 days ago:
That’s entirely true.
But that’s still a double-edged sword we’re playing with.
If you want to run towards a an “inevitable conclusion” in the one direction (resegregation… undesirable… are you even alluding to genocide?)
I think it’s fair to do the same in the opposite direction too. Is there no lower bound for human interaction and behavior? Is it wrong to set boundaries for how people treat you?
I like how hyper aware people are for things that could be turned into an avenue for bad things. I think that’s actually more than half the battle. Doesn’t always mean you toss the idea outright, you just know that you gotta watch out.
I, for one, am in favor of a minimal demonstrated set of awareness and capacity to operate a motor vehicle. I also am in favor of not letting people drive drunk. Someone might say this will inevitably turn into a tool of racism. And guess what, THEY’D BE RIGHT! But, the solution probably isn’t to ban cars, or to let anyone drive with no rules of the road and drive drunk.
- Comment on 3.5" floppy disks were peak tactile feedback in storage: easy to stick in, drives had a button to immediately eject them, big enough to get labels, thin enough that stacks didn't take too much space 1 week ago:
You’re right. I edited my post to make the words more accurately capture my intention. Thanks for the vibe check. I was out of line.
- Comment on 3.5" floppy disks were peak tactile feedback in storage: easy to stick in, drives had a button to immediately eject them, big enough to get labels, thin enough that stacks didn't take too much space 1 week ago:
If you don’t feel like you need to move your feet when you accidentally drop it (to avoid actually toe smack) , it’s too small.
- Comment on 3.5" floppy disks were peak tactile feedback in storage: easy to stick in, drives had a button to immediately eject them, big enough to get labels, thin enough that stacks didn't take too much space 1 week ago:
I think this is a disingenuous assessment of the “only” advantage.
The fact that 3.5" floppies were self-sealing to make handling irrelevant (put your greasy fingers on any surface you fucking want) is a painfully obvious advantage.
Maybe consider for more than 0.2 seconds before making such sweeping assertions.
(This isn’t the only extra advantage, I leave that for an exercise to the reader)
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
I mean, there was that one guy where the mob cut off his entire body
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
That’s an interesting thought, I hadn’t ever considered that it might become this “wandering” point in space based on context. Maybe having a “fixed” conception at all is just a byproduct of mostly relying on eyes and ears which are pretty fixed. If you’re relying on touch, which is available over a much larger and flexible area, your brain maybe just abandons any notion of you existing at a fixed point in your own body.
We gotta find a deaf and blind person.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
I haven’t had the chance to ask someone blind from birth (or blind at all), but I strongly suspect you’re right. I’d guess it’d be right between the ears.
In my bizarre life, I was basically blind in one eye for about a year when I was in my mid 20s. There was a perceptible and jarring difference in my perception of self, towards (but not directly to) my good eye. It didn’t happen right away, happened about a week in. This makes me wonder if even someone blind after birth would actually maintain the same sense of center vs someone blind at birth.
Blind and deaf at birth for me is the real head scratcher. Part of wonders if it would be somewhere on thier dominant hand, or maybe closer to thier center of mass?
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
I could be wrong, but I don’t think awareness that the brain being “where memories are stored” is innate. I think that’s something we are told. If I’m recalling correctly, a surprising amount of what we perceive as cognition is offloaded to other distributed parts of our nervous system, so it’s maybe not even quite as true as we think it is.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
Not exactly related, but I think the typical conception of self being centered around the head at all is maybe just because that’s where our eyes and ears are. Curious how deaf and blind people conceptualize the physical location of thier consciousness
- Comment on Wikipeter was the founder of the site in 1993 when he wanted to know more about model trains without having to visit the library 2 weeks ago:
In university my entire dorm floor was in on insisting to my ex that it wasn’t “Big Bird”, but instead “Big Bert” (as opposed to regular sized bert)
It came up for the 100th time at a party, and I was like “go ahead, look it up” and was able to get in an edit JUST before the page load. “Big Bird (Or “Big Burt” for Canadian rebroadcast)”
It lasted for maybe 20 seconds, but it was all we needed.
- Comment on That boy is all right 3 weeks ago:
I thought it required energy to process wood into charcoal?
- Comment on That boy is all right 3 weeks ago:
Carbon neutral?
- Comment on My culture also loves music, dancing and telling stories 4 weeks ago:
I think we agree in principle.
I think if one conceptualize “deliciousness” as a “property that induces joy” and “not deliciousness” as a “property that induces suffering” as being distinct measures, then it makes sense to conceptualize puritan values as saying they don’t value “deliciousness”.
If you conceptualize “deliciousness” as having a negative axis, then Puritains DO value deliciousness, but along the negative axis, which is irregular and noteworthy, but still valuing deliciousness.
Same goes for suffering vs enjoyment. If you consider them independent vs as it being one measure with negative values.
I’m considering them as the same but with a negative axis. I feel like that’s where the gap is. I think ultimately we’re in agreement.
- Comment on My culture also loves music, dancing and telling stories 4 weeks ago:
I’m not sure if agree with your conclusion. You might conclude that they put great value on the deliciousness of thier food, but the relationship is inverse: less delicious = greater value.
People of of two cultures might both place high value on decorations, but one culture might view another’s style as tacky.
- Comment on My culture also loves music, dancing and telling stories 4 weeks ago:
I was picturing a culture for whom food was strictly for nutrition.
- Comment on My culture also loves music, dancing and telling stories 4 weeks ago:
Well, at the risk of being pedantic, you literally said:
food is just nutrition
I understand now what you intended to communicate (which is strictly different than what you said)
I got excited when I read what you said, because i thought you actually had an example of a culture for whom food is just nutrition. It’s a sci-fi trope that i find interesting because it is truly alien, and I’ve always wondered if any real culture fit that.
Even in puritan cultures that intentionally eat plain food to shun “hedonism”, food becomes a vehicle for virtue signaling. The suffering is a ritual practice. Food, even then, plays a critical cultural role.
I understand what you mean now. I’m just disappointed.
- Comment on My culture also loves music, dancing and telling stories 4 weeks ago:
Food has ceremonial and ritual value in all of those places, it is not merely a vehicle for nutrition.
- Comment on My culture also loves music, dancing and telling stories 4 weeks ago:
You guys
- Comment on My culture also loves music, dancing and telling stories 4 weeks ago:
People keep making this broad assertion and then not following up.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if there are many cultures for whom food is merely nutrition, could you name one?
From an anthropological standpoint, I’d be fascinated.
Like, this thread is full of jokes about how some cultures have shitty food, but that subjective assessment is very different than the idea that food’s mere purpose is nutrition. It implies it has no ceremonial use.
So, of the many, just even tell us one.
- Comment on A Jamaican accent just makes me smile 5 weeks ago:
Technically the post is reducing another culture to a form of therapy
- Comment on I just 💚 them and think they're neat. 1 month ago:
It’s not mine. Literally look back through this comment thread.
The person you replied to said “steal” was a poor choice of words and you piped up to say it wasn’t. That was the moment you entered into a semantic argument.
- Comment on I just 💚 them and think they're neat. 1 month ago:
Your disagreement with op about the definition of stealing IS the semantic argument. That’s what a semantic argument is.
- Comment on I just 💚 them and think they're neat. 1 month ago:
You got into a semantic argument… and then started laying down incoherent definitions that you made up on the spot.
Yes, I agree, you are absolutely trolling.
- Comment on I just 💚 them and think they're neat. 1 month ago:
You’re the one who invented a definition of “theft” that for reasons beyond my understanding consider the consuming organisms specific mechanism of utilization that also specifically considers if the organism has the ability to synthesize the structures independent of consumption and now also demands that the process be sustainable for an arbitrary (but not indefinite) amount of time AND the structures must meet an arbitrary bar of complexity (which you’ve proclaimed unilaterally is greater than fat) etc etc etc
I’m going to drive now directly to my point now that hopefully you can see how your ever-expanding definition of “stealing” (which is promise you, im not even getting STARTED on pushing issues that would force you to continually expand it) is just bad.
Counter Definition: Eating isn’t theft. The degree to which ingested materials must be broken down to be useful is interesting, but none of it is stealing. The article used a word that while amusing to read isn’t technically accurate.
- Comment on I just 💚 them and think they're neat. 1 month ago:
Digestion begins before you swallow. I expect if I chewed up some salad, opened my mouth and aimed it at the sun, some percentage of what I’d just chewed on would have access to co2, h2o and 600nm EMR, and synthesize a glucose molecule two.
Since the genesis of this conversation was purely semantic (“why is eating a chrolorplast theft if eating anything else isn’t?”) I think it’s pretty fair game to point out that yes, technically I also can reap the benefits of photosynthesis in a very limited way.
Not really a point in getting into a semantic argument if you’re just gonna come out swinging about being anti-science.
- Comment on Any Klingon speakers around who play Arc Raiders by chance? 1 month ago:
Only a Varool would use such language in public