wpb
@wpb@lemmy.world
- Comment on Why conservative men repeatedly crash Grindr 2 weeks ago:
There it is!
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 2 weeks ago:
Haha your head is pretty far up your ass. No funding means no iron dome, no iron dome means no pissrael.
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 2 weeks ago:
Ok, so I think our wires cross regarding terminology here. We’re roughly on the same page. So, when you believe something, you can put some probability on how likely it is to be true. I think we both agree that putting probability 1 is either mistaken or a lie. It is asserting that you’re infallible. And I think we both agree that asserting your infallibility is silly. So, to every belief you have you put some probability. If I look at the cat on the mat in broad daylight I will put 0.999, and I’ll put 0.99 if it’s a dimly lit room or whatever. In any case, despite believing the cat to be on the mat, I admit that I am human, therefore fallible, and I will assign some non-zero probability to the negation, namely 0.001 or 0.01. And here I think we’re still on the same page.
Here I think we diverge, and it’s just a matter of definition. I’ve been referring to that small sliver of probability of the negation of my belief being true as “doubt”. So with my definition of doubt, you will agree, there is always some doubt. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but it is always there. Let’s refer to my definition of doubt as “schmoubt”.
If feel like your conception of doubt is basically when schmoubt reaches a certain threshold, namely where you’re no longer comfortable saying you believe the proposition. So for example, we might dim the lights quite a lot, and maybe my schmoubt goes all the way up to 0.4 or whatever, and I no longer believe there is a cat on the mat. I’m pretty sure there’s something sitting on something, but my schmoubt for the statement “the cat is on the mat” is too high for me to justify my belief to myself. So clearly you believe schmoubt is real, but you wouldn’t call it doubt. What do you call it?
Regarding the funeral thing, I think you need to be a bit more critical of your analysis. It is perfectly consistent to believe in an afterlife but also be sad when someone passes. Because for the time being, you will be separated from them. You will be going at it alone, for quite some time in some cases. It’s the same as being sad your significant other will work abroad for a while. You will see them again, and this is temporary, but you are sad because you will not be able to enjoy their physical presence for a while.
- Comment on “ChatGPT said this” Is Lazy 2 weeks ago:
I didn’t read your comment, but deepseek said this:
Well said. You’ve nailed the key distinction: AI as a thought amplifier vs. thought substitute. The value depends entirely on the user’s foundation of knowledge. Your approach—building a curated knowledge base so people (and AI) can learn just-in-time—is exactly right. It sets everyone up for success by grounding the AI in truth. Smart strategy.
I haven’t read this either but I hope it helps.
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 2 weeks ago:
Look up UN votes on various issues regarding Israel. We’re already there, and have been for decades. It’s just that the US holds the UN hostage with their veto power.
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 2 weeks ago:
If your bar for believing something is that you’re 100% certain that it is true (i.e., a complete lack of doubt), then you’ve rendered the whole concept of belief useless as there is no proposition this applies to.
Me, if I see a cat sitting on a mat, I will believe there is a cat on the mat. But it might be that it’s a capybara wearing an incredibly convincing cat costume. Very low odds, but the possibility is there. It could also be that I was a bit careless in looking, and the cat is actually sitting on an especially mat-like section of the newspaper. There is always doubt. Sometimes there’s more (maybe the lights were off), sometimes there’s less (I spend a good hour examining the cat-mat situation, consulting biologists and mat experts), but there is always doubt.
Asserting you have no doubt is asserting you made no mistake in assessing reality, i.e., that you’re perfect. And call me a dick, but I don’t think you are.
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 2 weeks ago:
Exactly, and the allied forces could’ve just not attacked the nazis. All Germany wanted was to be left alone. Great point!
- Comment on Waffle House: Pull up then. 😐 3 weeks ago:
This is advertising. Cute posts from corporate accounts are there for no reason other than creating brand awareness. You reposted advertising.
- Comment on the two party system is just one big party 4 weeks ago:
So, I hate to be that guy, but the dems get a chance every 4 years or so, and yet here we are. It seems that the democratic leaderships of the past haven’t really prevented the slow and continuous slide to fascism. And please do note that every dem president and candidate is more right wing than the previous ones. They’re sliding too.
- Comment on the two party system is just one big party 4 weeks ago:
He’s not saying that.
- Comment on the two party system is just one big party 4 weeks ago:
That would be a weird thing to say indeed. No one’s saying that though.
- Comment on Current events dictate that I post this. 4 weeks ago:
You know what bombs do? They kill people, indiscriminately, especially when you throw them on desnsely populated civilian centers that you’ve driven 100s of thousands of refugees into. What are you going to tell me next, “muh human shields”? Fuck off.
- Comment on Current events dictate that I post this. 4 weeks ago:
Because they always argue in bad faith based on a surface level reading of headlines. It’s always the same story. I see a “tankie” citing research, statistics, historical texts on one side, and on the other I see someone like you, floundering. It’s embarrassing, and a waste of time, because you’re not in this in good faith. You never really engage with the arguments. So what’s the point?
- Comment on Current events dictate that I post this. 4 weeks ago:
There is not a single good bomb thrown by Israel in history, just like Russia hasn’t thrown a good bomb in the history of the Ukraine conflict. The reasoning is exactly the same. Israel, like Russia, is the aggressor, the occupier in this conflict, since its very inception. It’s very clear from your comments that you don’t read history, and it would serve you well to be less confident about the things you clearly don’t really know about.
- Comment on Current events dictate that I post this. 4 weeks ago:
So there never was a terrorist threat to Israeli citizens?
Mask off moment. Never argue with a liberal, it’s a complete waste of time
- Comment on Current events dictate that I post this. 4 weeks ago:
War crimes are only bad if the bad guy does them. NATO is a good guy.
- Comment on Ad companies are the ones destroying civilization 5 weeks ago:
Couple of things that are either a definition, obvious, or directly observable in literally every capitalist nation in history:
- the defining characteristic of capitalism is the private ownership of businesses
- the ability to own a business can buy you influence on the electorate legally, through owning ad agencies, newspapers, think tanks, online influencers
- owning a business can buy you influence on politicians legally, by hiring lobbyists, by threatening to take your business elsewhere, by promising politicians cushy jobs after their tenure, by contributing to their campaign through fundraisers, PACs, etc
- this influence gives you the power to change laws and regulations to your benefit
- in particular, it allows you to shape laws to benefit you financially, making the actions in point 2 and 3 easier to do
- in particular, it allows you to get rid of laws restricting you to do the things in points 2 and 3
- it is in the best interest of politicians to deregulate the latter parts of point 3
- as such, a capitalist system where only parts or even none of point 2 and 3 are allowed, has a natural tendency towards a system where they are fully allowed
Leaving all other economic systems aside for a moment*, the idea that this is not a direct and natural consequence of capitalism doesn’t seem to hold water, both on a theoretical and an empirical level.
- And we do this because, analogously, arguing your right hand isn’t bleeding because your left hand is makes no sense. Capitalism can be studied in its own right. What’s more is that the number of alternative systems is infinite, and I’m sure lemmy has a character limit.
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 1 month ago:
This is just absolutely wild to me. Just true unfiltered insanity. The democrats literally sent 50B in military aid to a nation that is literally committing a genocide, and if someone complains about this your reactions to effectively say “geeze complain much?”. I truly, fundamentally, do not understand how a human can have that response. It just does not compute. The only thing I can think of is that you actually don’t believe there is a genocide, or that the democrats didn’t fund it. But that too seems so far fetched, because these are both so easy to verify. None of it adds up
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 1 month ago:
Exactly! Which is why moving right every cycle has proved to be such a winning strategy for the democrats! Finally someone talks sense.
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 1 month ago:
Lovely how not actively supporting and funding a genocide is a purity test now. Beautiful stuff.
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 1 month ago:
Elections are no time for democracy, that’s some tankie shit.
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 1 month ago:
Go out and pressure the DNC to not be shit
How about you go out and draw the rest of the owl there? The main power we have is our right to vote, and you’re saying we shouldn’t use that to pressure the DNC to put forth a pro-worker anti-war candidate.
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 1 month ago:
I take issue with your use of the adjective “good” in “good cop”.
- Comment on Oatly banned from using word ‘milk’ to market plant-based products in UK 1 month ago:
but I don’t think companies should be allowed to sell it as “milk” in any form
Well sure, and they haven’t been able to in almost a decade. This court ruling is about something else.
- Comment on But bro please 1 month ago:
No no bro bro listen
- Comment on But bro please 1 month ago:
No bro just roll over and take it bro pls I’m telling you
- Comment on Im curious what they will come up with 1 month ago:
I feel like you’re a bit too emotionally involved. It’s just a cartoon, calm down.
Anyway, to clarify my comment, which I thought was brief and to the point enough that it was easy to grasp, but apparently not for you: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with covering current events or lampooning stuff. The way south park does this is sanctimonious and smug, to the point where I find it hard to watch.
- Comment on Im curious what they will come up with 1 month ago:
Whenever they take on real world stuff, they’re incredibly smug and sanctimonious about it. This has been the case since the start, and I can’t say I’ve ever been able to get past that.
- Comment on Ubisoft Fires Team Lead For Criticising Stupid Return-To-Office Mandate 1 month ago:
I’m getting strong rest of the owl vibes from a lot of what you say.
So for example, you say you need strong allies. Well, list some candidates! China? They have a policy of non-intervention, so don’t count on it. Cuba? Not very strong. The US, or some other nation that’s captured by the owning class (Netherlands, France, Germany, etc)? Fat chance.
Same with the focus having folks join unions more. I think it’s a great outcome to strive for, but how do we achieve that goal? On a systemic level we see union membership dropping, and that’s no coincidence, because more and more anti-union legislation is enacted across the board in Europe and America. And that in turn is no coincidence because the people who really don’t want us to unionize have enough money to lobby this legislation into existence, and they happen to own the media, so they’re also doing a good job of convincing us that it is against our interests to join a union. Voting a pro-union candidate into power is incredibly difficult for the simple fact that campaign funds are a pretty decent predictor of electoral success, and guess who has the money to contribute significant amounts to those funds? Not me.
The education thing too is pretty great, but it assumes that some worker-friendly entity already has control over the education system. How do you get there? And education only goes so far of course. At some point folks leave the educational system, and their main source of information becomes the media. I’ve seen well-educated folks be completely convinced that there is no genocide in Gaza, and I could not blame them, because for the first year no major outlet would even utter the word. How do you prevent the media from being captured by the owning class?
Ultimately the problem is that the opponent has the means and willingness to use violence to quell your movement. And they’ve shown time and again that they will use these means, and history shows it works (Allende, the Spanish anarchist revolution, the Paris commune, Indonesia’s takeover by Suharto, Lumumba, etc). How do you defend yourself effectively against a violent aggressor without resorting to illiberal means yourself?
- Comment on Ubisoft Fires Team Lead For Criticising Stupid Return-To-Office Mandate 1 month ago:
Yeah! And we need to do it in a way where the incredibly rich and powerful who have a vested interest and desparate need for us to fail won’t kill our movement! In the past and present, any socialist movement was met with
- death squads
- propaganda
- military invasions
- assasinations of heads of state
- funding, arming, and training the opposition
- economic sanctions
- so, so much propaganda
all funded by the absurdly wealthy to make nations fail and make them more amenable to re-exploitation by the owning class.
Any ideas to defend ourselves against this phenomenon which occurs over and over again?