daltotron
@daltotron@lemmy.world
- Comment on Why do we associate reverby electric guitar with the ocean? 1 day ago:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surf_music
Seems like your question contains the answer that you seek
- Comment on Why Didn't Democrats Do More When They Controlled Both Houses of Legislature, The White House, and The Supreme Court During Obama's First Term? 1 day ago:
Couldn’t the republicans just do the same thing and remove it when they get a 51% majority
- Comment on Iron 2 days ago:
imagine, over the centuries of blood donation, the sword slowly grows from a knife, into an absolutely huge dragonslayer behemoth
- Comment on Iron 2 days ago:
Fucking awesome, exactly the comment I was looking for in this thread
- Comment on Iron 2 days ago:
Maybe the sword is just the product of a small cult which drains blood to create it?
- Comment on The second matchup of the tournament 3 days ago:
I thought they tried reintroducing wolves to yellowstone, no?
- Comment on The second matchup of the tournament 3 days ago:
I think it’s established as a draw since hydrogen bomb blew themselves up
- Comment on The second matchup of the tournament 3 days ago:
Wolf. It’s a singular wolf, so it honestly cannot beat me if it tried. Even if we assume the other two are more docile, all they need to do is try and I would be dead.
lol at this
- Comment on The second matchup of the tournament 3 days ago:
But, like, a man could still kill you, right? Is that better than being eaten?
I mean generally being eaten entails entrails leaking out, whereas getting killed could entail any number of things. Neck snap, choked out, slit throat, whatever. I dunno if your average idiot man is gonna be as proficient of a killer as a bear, even if they happen to be a murderer or like, just evil, right, so, I dunno. Kind of a toss up. Me personally, I would rather not have my guts spilled out, ribcage crushed, spine snapped, bones gnawed on while I’m still conscious, slowly lose blood and lose consciousness over the course of 30 minutes to an hour. I mean I guess theoretically a man could do those things too, but I dunno many men that could. Maybe like, the mike tyson of 40 years ago?
I guess the argument I’m making hinges on the idea that humans are generally bad at killing in a physiological sense, and their need to kind of, up themselves in the game means that they tend to get filtered into a bunch of more painless and efficient approaches relative to the kind of uncaring cruelty of nature more generally. But then I dunno, humans also have a capacity for needless cruelty and torture, so I’d also be betting my chances that I don’t get shafted and stuck with like, a super jacked serial killer that can torture me with their bare hands, which there’s probably only like 2 or 3 of in the world. Maybe more if you include government contracted ones.
- Comment on French revolution 3 days ago:
Will these exercises work on the butthole as well? asking for a friend asking for a friend
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
this website has defo been infiltrated by right-wing groups
I mean it was kind of inevitable on lemmy.world, right? An ostensibly centrist instance that kind of tries to brand itself as the “mainstream” socially acceptable lemmy instance. It was basically liberal from the start, you know? Appealing to users flooding in from the reddit exodus. The more explicitly leftist influenced things are going to act more, you know, liberal with the banning out of self-preservation, and so are inevitably going to kind of like, paradoxically, cordon themselves off into little, I mean, basically echo chambers, so they’re not going to appeal to a kind of broader audience as much.
It’s all kind of inevitable from the structure of the site, I think.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
damn, these kindsa guys are really gonna bring about the human-prion shit huh
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
“free” means nothing though, it’s just a substitute for other values. It’s not just free as in “if it doesn’t harm me, you’re allowed to do it”. As another commenter pointed out, one person, they would espouse the freedom to have and own and use guns for self-defense, right? I could just as easily make the argument that guns, collectively, when this right is enabled, impinge on my freedom not to live in a gun-free, potentially less violent, or at least less lethal, society. The freedom provided by publically subsidized or collective single payer healthcare, vs the freedom to "not have to pay for everyone else’s healthcare. If I just rely on freedom as a value, it indicates nothing. It’s a sock puppet ideology. There’s always another value there which is being substituted for it. Liberalism can’t just equal freedom, or else it’s just totally meaningless. While it does have a broad specific meaning as it refers to a specific school of thought, it’s not totally meaningless as it otherwise would be.
Liberalism is a political and economic philosophy which espouses the merits of the free market as a collective decision making structure, which can allocate resources according to price signals. I.e. take resources in the economy and allocate them to where they best need to go, which is sort of what any idea of the economy has to do. It also generally espouses an idea of a naturally occurring meritocracy and rational actors, which the free market relies upon to be of real merit. At the extreme end you get shit like idiot anarcho-capitalism and the austrian school of economics, which is very resistant to government interventionism and kind of holds a religious adherence to free markets and their freedom from governance or regulation by governments. Guys like adam smith. Maybe in the middle you have more standard forms of liberalism, that still support free markets, but also support a pretty decent government and sort of see the two as being opposed to one another. Probably that would slot in a little more into neoliberalism, on the side of markets, and then classical liberalism leaning more towards government intervention. And then on the far end you get shit like nordic government and social democracy more broadly, which would try to engage in capitalism while still building out large support structures, as generally opposed to democratic socialism which seeks to basically eliminate conventional capitalism altogether. You also maybe get “market socialism” somewhere in there, inasmuch as a kind of inherently contradictory ideology like that can exist.
None of what I said really has any commentary on general social issues. You won’t find it in there, in any of those mostly economic philosophies, you won’t find positions on gay rights or trans rights, generally, civil rights more broadly, or drug use, or crime and punishment. There’s not any position on civil rights more broadly which is specifically intrinsic to any of those philosophies. Nothing on “open-mindedness”. The same could be said of communism, or really any economic philosophy outside of like, normal fascism, which everyone kind of has a hard time defining. Libs, mostly, but I won’t elaborate on that one until you press me on it.
In any case, that’s what liberalism as an economic philosophy all tends to mean, tends to refer to, that’s the larger, broader category. As you might intuit, it’s mostly just kind of, “capitalism”, in it’s many different forms. None of this is meaning-twisting, this is all just shit that’s existing in the academic literature for a long while. I’m not a language prescriptivist, so I’m not going to say that it’s wrongly used, when it’s not strictly conforming to academic definitions, and I will freely admit that most of the reference I see to it in colloquial conversation is kind of just like, to mean “woke”, you know, to refer more to socially progressive outlooks more broadly. But I think it’s important to question kind of why that is, why it’s seen as this thing that’s only kind of half-invisible to the population, why it’s completely divorced, colloquially, from any economic definition, and instead just refers to like, ahh, that guy, that guy’s a lib, that guy thinks black people should have rights, what a lib cuck, kind of a thing.
Tracking the warping of language is a pretty important thing to do, because it tells you all about the intentionality with which it’s used, the broader political strategy, the core philosophies of the people using it, it tells you where they’ve come from and what they’re referring to. More specifically, these kinds of changes of meaning that take place within certain words, they serve to cordon off, or, serve as an evidence of the cordoning off, of certain populations from others. The word is transformed in such a way as to make communication between groups impossible, and is also transformed in such a way as to totally eliminate that to which it previously was in reference to.
I don’t think using liberal to mean “socially progressive” is necessarily the wrong way to do things, but I do think that the academic definition, the academic reference, the idea there, it still has a lot of value. If one serves to obfuscate the other’s shorthand, I would find that to be kind of a tragedy.
- Comment on Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much 3 days ago:
added, should I begin at the beginning or are there recommended episodes I should listen to first over others?
- Comment on The Patriarchy 4 days ago:
yeah I bet there’s a lot of weird things you’d come across huh buddy
- Comment on Soup 1 week ago:
that’s so based hoo lee I must’ve missed that one gotta do a rewatch
- Comment on Soup 1 week ago:
we’d do it cause it’d be funny even if they weren’t tortured or nothing. can you imagine a little asshole running around the utopia being like “no, no, I’m supposed to own things, where are my stocks, where are my numbers, no!”. probably it’d suck that all their friends are deade though. I’m sure you thaw a couple cause the have rare diseases or certain kinds of DNA though.
- Comment on How come liberals dont hate conservatives the way conservatives hate liberals 1 week ago:
I mean I’d probably change my answer depending on the phrasing of the question here.
If you mean like, classical liberalism, which includes both laissez-faire capitalism and interventionism, you’d probably find quite a lot of conservatives at this point who would define their economic ideology (if they even have any) as belonging to that kind of realm of thought, at least with laissez-faire. That shit’s pretty old, we’ve been through like multiple cycles of that, both globally, and domestically in america, and calling for a regression to a period when your specific breed of liberalism was in place is pretty possible. Which would be kind of lumped under conservative thought, despite the window dressing of like, wanting to just kind of, hedge your bets, maintain the status quo, and “conserve” things, and even the branding of “this is the way things really are, so we need to conserve the real reality”, it’s mostly actively regressive horseshit.
So, that’s to say, you could both be a liberal and a conservative at the same time, if you’re going based on the like, actual political definitions of things. I get the sense you’re more trying to use the term “liberal” to mean “progressive”, or probably more accurately “socially progressive”. If you want a reason why I’m making this kind of stupid semantic distinction, it’s because I think it’s important to distinguish liberalism, and neoliberalism, right, which refer to economic freedom, from other more actually socially progressive ideologies. I’ll get to that later. In any case, it’s pretty much part of the intrinsic nature of the ideology that, being okay with gay people, at the least, is going to be more chill than not wanting gay people to exist. The same for trans people, the homeless, racial minorities, neurodivergent people, whatever.
Socially progressive values are also kind of default, I think, in a vacuum (which hardly anything is), whereas nutter conservative ideology is something you have to be more actively radicalized into. If you don’t give a shit about gay people, you’re probably also fine with them just like, going about life and existing. You might also be fine with their oppression, but you’re not actively hindering things, necessarily. You have to be actively radicalized and convinced they’re bad, though, in order to call for them to be like, killed, or barred from marriage, or whatever.
You would have to more actively want gay people to have rights, to care about them more in a positive way, and actively oppose their oppression more, in order to like, actually push for things. It’s a more active position, basically, to be actually socially progressive, or actually progressive. It necessitates caring. I think despite it just being on the surface more nice as in ideology, which helps prevent people from being like, actively hateful, I think it’s probably also sadly the case that a lot of people who would otherwise pretend to be socially progressive don’t actually give two shits about what happens or doesn’t happen, and are just mindlessly occupying what they see as kind of a default position at the time.
If you go back to like the 2000’s, lots of people who are otherwise pretty “progressive” nowadays would’ve been pretty turbo homophobic and transphobic. That’s not really a slight against their character, right, we’re all products of our environment, but they’re just occupying kind of whatever position they think is acceptable to the mainstream.
Put even more simply, they kind of, understand that one side is right and one is wrong, but since they don’t really understand the underlying reasoning behind either side, they’re just jumping onto whatever they get better vibes from. That used to be some more reactionary stuff, because we were kind of in both a more apathetic and callous cultural era where “not caring” was seen as cool and offering a better vibe, and we were seen as being kind of in a “post-history”, “post-racial” world, where if you were offended by racism, that was your fault, because we ended racism, and now the only real racism is you thinking racism is real, man hits bong. Just sort of like, the idea of racism as existing in a purely cultural state, just as a remnant, a cultural artifact relic which we need to move past culturally, but doesn’t affect the “real world” in any way. Those ideologies were kind of appealing to a mostly white mainstream cultural population, who could pretty easily just walk around, and make edgy jokes, and pretend still that everything’s gonna be okay because they haven’t encountered a housing market crash and the consolidation of all of the wealth in a fraction of the population and a once in a century pandemic partially accelerated by huge misinformation campaigns. Basically, because the mainstream cultural consciousness, mostly controlled by white people, was still insulated from the worst of the worst consequences, and because they were still getting treats.
We still had a white suburban middle class, basically. We still do, but we used to, too.
Now though, people see being socially progressive as having a better vibe. Probably this is because we’re on the long end of the economy being shit, and everyone having realized that collectively burning your children’s futures in order to further white supremacy isn’t a sustainable thing long term and just fucks you over, probably it’s also because the internet has made it easier for marginalized voices to occupy more space in the cultural consciousness, whereas before they would’ve been screened by industry gatekeepers. Probably it’s also because conservative nutters collectively lost their fucking minds and kind of went mask off with trump and gamergate shit, partially as a reaction to obama just being like, black, but also those other factors I’ve named.
Probably it’s because the middle class that you used to see in all those 90’s movies, like fight club and office space, got automated away, outsourced, or otherwise traded for a bunch of IT and internet developers, which can mostly take their place as part of the managerial class. We go from cubicles in high rises, to open floor plan offices in mid-rises, to work-share rental spaces in low-rises, to work-from-home setups, and the amount of people allowed treats from their overlords narrows in total population because you simply don’t need as many. The amount of people who are actively fooled by corporate propaganda and bootstraps mentalities also narrows with the proliferation of the internet and with the lack of people who are now “in” on this middle class lifestyle, so your immediate social group is more likely to have people who you know are chilling but are also struggling a lot financially.
yeah I think that’s all I got as far as this one goes.
- Comment on They say your body is the only instrument that doesn't require any lessons 1 week ago:
woah, that’s like advanced piss docking, I’ve only seen that in my animes. nice.
- Comment on rollin' coal 1 week ago:
me when I am malthusian:
- Comment on rollin' coal 1 week ago:
That’s probably just their truck being shite, without regular maintenance, and such. As you’ve pointed out, lots of them don’t own their trucks, and “rolling coal” generally refers to the practice of intentionally modifying a diesel truck to shoot out unburnt diesel fuel, usually through a straight pipe, and usually angled to be facing other cars or people they’re hazing or whatever, from what I’ve seen. It’s not unlikely that semi truckers, which is a sector that uses a particularly large amount of diesel compared to the normal car having population, would have a percentage of the fleet at any given time which is falling behind on maintenance to try to eek out more profit. Maybe their engines are just running rich, or probably more likely they have clogged air filters. Dunno what would be causing it to get past the catalytic converter and the rest of the exhaust manifold though, and just blow out straight with black smoke. That all seems like it would probably have to be modified intentionally, to see it with any frequency, ja? I dunno, hard to say.
I dunno I also say you’ve seen it around austin and san antonio, around college campuses, and that checks out to me as a more political kind of phenomenon, then just, say, seeing people running around town and hazing bikers or whatever.
So, I dunno. Does it count as rolling coal if your car is just shite?
- Comment on Anon has nerdy hobbies 1 week ago:
No, I’m saying they’re not a great indicator of how people tend to be perceived, and people tend to be complaining about the trends, rather than the outliers. Also that, if you know short and ugly people who are funnier and have better personalities than their taller and handsomer counterparts, and who have had romantic success, that would kind of prove the idea that uglier, shorter people need to work harder correct.
I could probably also explain this with the friendship paradox, which I think I cited recently for a similar thing someone was citing as example.
- Comment on "PSN isn't supported in my country. What do I do?" Arrowhead CEO: "I don't know" 1 week ago:
Why is this point so hard to understand?
It’s not, they’re making a separate but contiguous point about how the market naturally incentivizes shittier tactics from it’s participants, and how Steam, Valve, and Gaben are exceptions to the rule.
- Comment on "PSN isn't supported in my country. What do I do?" Arrowhead CEO: "I don't know" 1 week ago:
Highly recommend the Internet Historian video about no man’s sky.
I wouldn’t, that dude’s a nazi
- Comment on Anon has nerdy hobbies 1 week ago:
The numbers don’t tend to bear that out, and in any case, even the example you cite doesn’t, because it’s implying that the men who are short and ugly are having to be more humorous and have more depth than their tall beautiful counterparts.
I think oftentimes when people complain about this sort of thing they kind of just need someone to empathize with them rather than tell them that oops life’s not fair time to suck it up crybaby, which is generally seen as a callous dickish response but any other issue. Not to say that’s what you’re saying, but I’ve seen that sort of response be pretty common when people sort of, make the point that being tall and good looking will make you more likely to “score”, or get a date or whatever.
- Comment on Anon has nerdy hobbies 1 week ago:
fedoras used to be hella cool. trenches, katanas, all that shit.
I dunno if this was ever true, but I think you’ll find more success the more you lean in, because the more you lean in, the harder it is to take you seriously. pair your trench coat with cargo shorts. wear a flea market xxl silk anime shirt with goku on it, unbuttoned, behind that, you gotta wear a mario or zelda shirt or something. a thinkgeek style of shirt. wear some crocs with the jibbits in em. maybe wear a cool casio watch, a silver one. get a fanny pack, put this in the belt loop of your trench coat. See if you can get a katana around there too. get some coke bottle glasses, some morpheus glasses that just sit on the bridge of your nose too. get some ankle high socks, get a couple cool bracelets, if you’re balding, shave the top, go for a horseshoe shape, grow out your hair, and put it in a ponytail. get your glasses to have a strap.
do all that, and then you’ll wrap back around to being cool, and stylin’. you’ll be hip with the youths.
- Comment on Anon has nerdy hobbies 1 week ago:
Think of it like this: you end up in prison, and your naked, alone, you have no allies or friends, while taking a shower with about 100 other dudes, and Bubba comes over with a grin saying “you’re awful pretty”. How would you feel?
Erect?
- Comment on Anon has nerdy hobbies 1 week ago:
You know, it really makes it feel like those comments are particularly useless when, just by having used the website for a long enough time, you can imagine them simply by the scars they have branded onto your thinking goo. It becomes totally redundant at that point, totally useless, even worse than it having contributed nothing but empty space in the first place, it now occupies empty space in the brain. It’s like old farts constantly remembering and bantering about ad jingles from their youth, it fills me with dread.
- Comment on Doesn't the need for a permit fundamentally contradict the US's ideals of free speech? 2 weeks ago:
I mean maybe that would force the rest of us to actually take them as a serious threat instead of just letting them schedule big speeches on campuses that attract a bunch of out of town fans of theirs and financially organize.
- Comment on Thomas Edison was the Elon musk of his era 2 weeks ago:
I dunno man, I’m really skeptical of Steve Jobs as a big “ideas guy” and I’d probably attribute most of Apple’s success to Steve Wozniak. I’d also wager that the pocket computer + phone revolution was probably inevitable at the point where the iPod and iPhone were coming out, and more long term, Apple’s success in that domain has done a lot of damage to the market with their “trend setting” behaviors.