wpb
@wpb@lemmy.world
- Comment on Why conservative men repeatedly crash Grindr 4 days ago:
There it is!
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 4 days 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. 4 days 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 Unconventional strategy. 4 days 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. 4 days 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. 4 days 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. 😐 1 week 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 2 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 2 weeks ago:
He’s not saying that.
- Comment on the two party system is just one big party 2 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. 2 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. 2 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. 2 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. 2 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. 2 weeks ago:
War crimes are only bad if the bad guy does them. NATO is a good guy.
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 4 weeks 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. 4 weeks 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. 4 weeks 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. 4 weeks ago:
Elections are no time for democracy, that’s some tankie shit.
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 4 weeks 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. 4 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago:
No no bro bro listen
- Comment on But bro please 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 But think of the landlords! 1 month ago:
So, I’m not interested in a Debbie Debater here, and I’m absolutely not claiming that you’re wrong, but I think two of the three sources you give don’t really pass my standard for reliable.
The first one doesn’t quite pass the vibe check for me. When I go to the home page, the top articles are about “the five greatest russian erotic films” and “7 budding russian models”. It just doesn’t screem “impartial scientific article” to me.
The Christian Science Moitor one from a researcher from radio liberty research. What I read is that this place was founded and funded by the CIA with the explicit purpose of broadcasting propaganda into the east bloc. To me, I’m about as likely to trust an article from this source as I am to trust an article about homelessness in South Korea coming from a think tank funded by North Korea, called the “Proletarian Empowerment Institute” or whatever.
One thing I can find plenty of impartial sources on is that it’s hard to find reliable data on homelessness from the USSR. But to go and trust some less than credible sources for a lack of alternatives is pure lamp post bias.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, and I’m not saying you’re wrong. All I’m saying is that the sources you cite don’t pass my personal smell test, and I still feel agnostic on whether or not homelessness rates in the USSR were better or worse than in the US in the 80s.
As an aside, it’s really embarrassing, but I don’t know where I got the 0.01% figure from. A second google search seems to suggest a range of 600,000 to 2,000,000 out of 247,000,000 so something closer to 0.0025%–0.08%. These figures I am more likely to trust, because the research climate for social sciences in the US was a bit freeer than in the USSR. For me personally, it doesn’t really affect whether or not I believe that the homelessness rate in the USSR was higher or lower than in the US because I still feel like I’m pretty much in the dark on the former. But maybe for you these figures help you sharpen your beliefs, so I figured I’d share them.
- Comment on But think of the landlords! 1 month ago:
What was their homelessness rate in the 1980s? I’ve looked for 5 minutes and have not been able to find anything. In the US it was 0.01%.
- Comment on I've wondered since I was a youngin 1 month ago:
Yes I was being sarcastic, and I should’ve made that clearer. I know of no other way of dealing with the smug sanctimonious attitude of those in rich peaceful countries demanding that the oppressed turn the other cheek because “violence bad”. It’s this bizarre combination of smugness, ignorance of history, and effectively advocating in favor of the oppressor that I really, really, cannot stand.
- Comment on I've wondered since I was a youngin 1 month ago:
This is silly. Everyone knows, historically, you stop opressors by asking nicely. Maybe go into the street in a funny costume or something, organize a singalong. Violence is what the baddies do.