MaeBorowski [she/her]

Tbf, this guy (Jem Bendell) was saying 5 years ago that civilization could be gone by 2025 due to a climate apocalypse that is now too late to avoid. There’s a lot to criticize about what he has said, but no one can claim that he doesn’t know how bad climate change is, has been, or how bad it might get. For the most part he’s considered the epitome of climate alarmism.

Like so many others who get their understanding of events from mainstream western media, you really don’t have a clue as to what’s going on. Here are some things for you to consider.

The fascist Ukrainian leadership is gang pressing civilians on the street into unmarked vans to be sent off to the front lines to die as cannon fodder. This is well documented and is open knowledge. Forced conscription is rampant and even many of those civilians in Ukraine who are against Russia (and not all of them are by any means) are now actively sabotaging the Ukrainian military. (see more on that below).

All along, the US and NATO have demanded that this war continue, despite the fact that Russia has offered reasonable peace terms numerous times, and despite the fact that it was never winnable for Ukraine. NATO (the US) does not give a shit about throwing Ukrainian people into a meat grinder if it means they can take out a few Russians too and continue the grift of enriching western arms manufacturers while plundering the country by privatizing every public asset that once existed there.

What you call a Russian invasion was actually Russia entering into a civil war that was already in progress, a war where the Kiev regime (that took power via western-backed coup by the way) was shelling the Donbas (eastern part of Ukraine), murdering civilians, burning trade unionists alive in their union halls, and trying to ethnically cleanse the Russian-speaking populace that lives there. Most of eastern Ukraine did and still do see Russia as coming to help liberate them, and are fighting against the Ukrainian regime as they have been long before February of '22, but since then have been doing so alongside or as part of Russia.

Ukrainians are dying because the (literal) nazis in control of Ukraine along with their masters NATO, will not allow the war to end so long as any Ukrainian with the ability to fight still lives. And it’s not just Russian weapons and military that is what ends up killing them, regardless of the fact that it is the interest of western imperialists that is ultimately responsible for sending them to their deaths. Ukrainians who refuse to fight have been getting killed from the start by Ukraine, some of them literally shot in the back as they try to flee, or bombed in train stations as they tried to get out of the country. And now children, many of them the children of parents who were already killed, are doing things like sabotaging Ukraine’s military vehicles. And guess what… these kids are getting executed on sight for doing so:

Resistance to military conscription deepens in Ukraine as leaders talk of role as a mercenary power

…

The “twisted world we’re living” in is the real one, not the propaganda-spun fake world you mistakenly believe to be reality. Pry your head out from under the propaganda spigot and look around, you might even then consider joining us in understanding what is actually happening in the world.

I mentioned this anecdote in another thread a couple weeks ago, but I think it fits here too:

It’s not even just chuds ime, it’s the majority of the US population that thinks the “further left” something or someone is, the more “liberal” it is. Even many liberals think this.

A while back I told someone (an acquaintance I met irl) that I considered myself a communist and their response to me was:

“I’m pretty liberal myself, but communism is too liberal even for me.”

There were several other people present and none of them thought this was a strange thing to say.

Typical hexbear reply

Unfortunately, you are right

Yes, typically hexbear replies are right.

It’s not unfortunate though, it’s simply a matter of having an understanding of the world and a willingness to accept it and engage with it. It’s too bad that you seem not to want that understanding or that you lack the willingness to accept it.

My science is not. I like my bubble.

How can you possibly square that first short sentence with the second? Are you really that willfully hypocritical? Yes, “your” science is political. No science escapes it, and the people who do science thinking themselves and their work is unaffected by their ideology are the most effected by ideology. No wonder you like your bubble - from within it, you don’t have to concern yourself with any of the real world or even the smallest sliver of self reflection. But all it is is a happy, self-reinforcing delusion. You pretend to be someone who appreciates science, but if you truly did, you would be doing everything you can to recognize your unavoidable biases rather than denying them while simultaneously wallowing in them, which is what you are openly admitting to doing whether you realize it or not.

find possibilities how ML can support people with certain tasks

Marxism-Leninism?

Oh, Machine Learning.

Science is not political

in an ideal world maybe, but that is not our world. In reality science is always always political. It is unavoidable.

The image in OP is what is toxic. Fostering a kind of echo chamber where the people who disagree with the prevailing narrative and bring reasoned arguments that contradict it get written off as “foreign agents” is extremely toxic, also nationalistic, and often borderline racist. It’s also childish. Pointing out how childish it is to tell someone “you’re just a RuSsIaN bOt!” because you don’t like what they have to say is definitely not toxic, quite the opposite.

What a laughable deflection. Politicians give a shit what the voting public in aggregate does, dipshit. If they don’t give a shit what you think, why are you advocating for one half of them? Why are you trying (and failing so bad it’s funny) to argue that people should vote for one team of them that you think are “less bad”?

but I’m not so far up my own ass that I don’t care about the consequences of my actions.

Like, do you really not care that you completely contradict yourself from one comment to the next, or hell, from one sentence to the next?

More people will die if Trump wins, and that is all that matter to me.

Meanwhile Biden & Harris fund a literal, undeniable genocide. You are such a clown I’d think it was impressive if it weren’t so disgusting.

If you think that’s supporting genocide then you can take you sick bizarro logic and shove it up your ass.

Yeah, refusing to vote for genocidaires is “sick, bizarro logic” but sending them your approval by voting and stanning for the genocidaires is “fighting fascism.” Nah, you can take your sick, twisted, fascist-apologist illogical rationalizations and shove them up your ass, you sycophantic loser.

And serious, how can you not understand even after RvW that doing nothing is still better for you than what the Republicans will do.

The republicans do it anyway!! The republicans do what they want, the democrats allow them to while raking in donations by telling everyone how mean the republicans are! It’s not that the democrats are better because they don’t do bad things but republicans do, it’s that they are both parts of the same machine that does these things, playing their respective roles! How can you be so fucking blind as not see the blatant “good cop/bad cop” routine for what it is?? And yet you are calling other people morons (ableist language by the way, asshole) for trying to get this very obvious reality through to you!

Doing other things than voting doesn’t stop you from voting. It takes 5 minutes every couple years. It is literally the least you can do

Voting for someone abetting a genocide (Biden, Harris) is endorsing that genocide. If the democrats win an election after funding a genocide, what kind of mesage is that sending all politicians, whether you like them or not? It’s telling them that they can commit genocide without repercussion, they can commit genocide and still have the support of the voting public. Voting for genocidaires (let alone defending them and trying to get others to do the same) makes you complicit in the current genocide as well as the ones that are sure to follow due to green light given to those who perpetrate them. You’re telling Democrats and any other politicians “as long as you give lip service to the things I care about - no need to follow through on them btw - then you can go ahead and murder entire nationalities and ethnic groups the world over, it’s ok, I’ll still vote for you.” Fucking disgusting.

There will be more after Trump and Netanyahu, and I will fight them as well. I will fight every fascist at every opportunity every time.

Why aren’t you fighting the other half of the exact same fascist machine then? Instead you insist on carrying water for the fascists that put on a civil facade. That’s not fighting fascism, that’s aiding it.

Why won’t you?

Oh fuck OFF. Nakoichi just fucking told you they have been doing REAL work to fight fascists for over 2 decades, but you completely ignore that. Such obvious bad faith.

Yeah, this is silly (and fun) but avoids the real problem of course. The question can be like you said, “which came first, the chicken or the chicken’s egg?” And for those that still want a literal answer, wikipedia says:

If the question refers to chicken eggs specifically, the answer is still the egg, but the explanation is more complicated.[8] The process by which the chicken arose through the interbreeding and domestication of multiple species of wild jungle fowl is poorly understood, and the point at which this evolving organism became a chicken is a somewhat arbitrary distinction. Whatever criteria one chooses, an animal nearly identical to the modern chicken (i.e., a proto-chicken) laid a fertilized egg that had DNA making it a modern chicken due to mutations in the mother’s ovum, the father’s sperm, or the fertilised zygote.

As an alternative, though it’s a bit more of an ungainly mouthful, I like: “which came first, the first species to lay an egg or the egg of the first species to lay an egg?” That one is a bit harder but you might still be able to tease out an answer. That way I think it gets a bit more into the problem of qualitative vs quantitative when you do (which is partly why I say below that this is related to the problem of the heap). Of course it’s really meant to be a philosophical problem anyway, and in that sense, it remains a paradox. It’s a way of making an analogy for a “causation dilemma” and gets at the idea of infinite regress and the paradoxes that brings up. It’s also related to the sorites paradox or the problem of the heap, which actually is an element discussed in Marxist (more because of Engels) dialectics.

How can a biological male, who was never a female, know the feeling he feels is that of a woman?

How can a biological male who was never a different individual biological male, know the feeling that he feels is that of another man? He can’t! He’s never been another man, only the individual that he is. So he can never know that the way he feels “as a man” is anything at all like how another man might feel “as a man.” However, since as a social species we have empathy we can make reasonable assumptions about how other people feel, in part based on what they say they feel, and no less so because they have different bits between their legs than if they have a different color of hair.

None of us can unambiguously know what it is like to be another person. This is an obvious truism. The way you’re trying to use it to draw this arbitrary line between what people can know about their own feelings, but only as determined by what kind of genitalia they were born with… it’s gross. And whether intended or not, bigoted. People of any and all genders can have empathy for anyone else of any and all genders. We can also know how we feel internally when society around us sees us as we feel we are, versus how we feel internally when society around us sees as as what we feel we are not. The former is good and affirming. The latter is painful and dejecting.

Their biological mechanisms have also been studied and partially understood by science. “Gender feelings”, not so much

Btw, there has been scientific research on transgender issues. Famously, there was a great trove of it that was burned by the Nazis in Germany. You know those infamous book burnings? Yeah, that was transgender scientific research. Fortunately, there has been a lot of other valid scientific studies done since then, too. All of it confirming the things people in this thread have been trying to tell you, even when you call it “fickle” or insist that your society isn’t empathetic enough to ever accept (which I categorically reject.)

It’s easily falsifiable and therefore much harder to definitely call it an observable material concept.

This may be a bit of a nitpick, but you have this backwards. Falsifiability is a prerequisite for any kind of hypothesis to be scientific. If a hypothesis, theory, or model is not falsifiable, what that means is it can never be shown to be wrong (false), and so it is fundamentally not scientific. And in this case, it is the difficulty (the impossibility, even) of falsifying what a person says they’re feeling that puts statements like that on shaky ground, scientifically speaking. Having to take someone at their word is not “easily falsifiable,” it is unfalsifiable, and that’s where the problem lies. If someone says “I feel sad today” then there is virtually no way we can ever prove this statement false: hence it is unfalsifiable. However, given the understanding of that caveat we do scientific studies all the time that involve the subjectivity of a person’s experience, even as a focal point. From the efficacy of depression medication to the polling done in order to sell more products/candidates, countless scientific studies still rely on people self reporting their feelings. The subjectivity just has to be recognized and factored in as part of the study.

In short, the unfalsifiability that is inherent in dealing with human experience doesn’t suddenly make it impossible to study human experience. We just have to control as best we can for things like bias in self reporting and recognizing and taking measures at eliminating reasons participants may have for saying things that aren’t accurate about their experience, and including relevant error margins.

The excuse they’ll use, which actually does has some truth to it, is that bathrooms that get used require upkeep like cleaning, TP, water/electricity, etc. The poor widdle businesses need to recoup their losses. But even with that aside, requiring people to pay in order to do something that everyone needs to do can bring in more money. Like if a person needs to go, especially if it’s urgent, are they going to grab the nearest product and pay as quickly as they can so they can get to the damn toilet, or are they going to run to the next establishment (or more likely in burgerland, get back in their car and drive to the next establishment) that probably also requires them to pay to piss? On top of all of that, it’s a way to discourage unhoused people from existing in the vicinity and “driving away customers.”

deleted by creator