naevaTheRat
@naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Despite all my rage I’m still a rat refreshing this page.
I use arch btw
- Comment on Labor, Coalition to suspend Lidia Thorpe from the Senate after she tore up a motion by Pauline Hanson 3 weeks ago:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_pIPTih5iM
Racist attacks against someone with the goal of excluding them from power are violence.
Pauline is a piece of human filth, I struggle to imagine an australian less worthy of life.
- Comment on Those poor plants 3 months ago:
lmfao this is hilarious
- Comment on Those poor plants 3 months ago:
The above comment is made of glyphs arranged to convey meaning. The Code of Hammurabi is made of glyphs arranged to convey meaning.
So the comment will very well be likely a significant contribution to human culture.
- Comment on Daily Discussion Thread: 🐷 🛖 🐺 💨🏚️ Thursday, August 29, 2024 3 months ago:
soz but are the animals killed for the cat food not equally deserving of life and happiness as a cat?
- Comment on Daily Discussion Thread: 🐷 🛖 🐺 💨🏚️ Thursday, August 29, 2024 3 months ago:
I used to agree, but nuttlex buttery is actually quite good!
although personally don’t add fat to much, being an enthusiastic cook that is growing sideways a little more than I ought to.
- Comment on Daily Discussion Thread: 🐷 🛖 🐺 💨🏚️ Thursday, August 29, 2024 3 months ago:
Hope that’s oil or margarine on that popcorn! Chicken salt is fine though, amusingly it has no chicken in it. Weird name huh?
- Comment on Daily Discussion Thread: 🐷 🛖 🐺 💨🏚️ Thursday, August 29, 2024 3 months ago:
Hi! I’m the mod that started this all! I think everyone who uses the phrase “obligate carnivore” is outing themselves as a complete buffoon since it has literally 0 application to whether or not it is possible, which would be obvious if people looked up the definition.
But of course, that would be expecting a lot from people :)
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 4 months ago:
Look ultimately words mean what they mean in the context that they’re spoken but broadly neoliberalism is highly socially permissive. Provided, that is, one does this as a responsible member of the capitalist economy and doesn’t disrupt the market.
Like you can have neoliberals that love trans kids, celebrate pride, want more black female drone pilots etc. It is, however, not a neoliberal position say compare the number of vacant properties to the number of homeless people and suggest that perhaps we should just take the unused houses and give them to homeless people? That would violate the principles of private property and free markets. After all: what freedom does one have if you can’t watch someone freeze to death on the doorstep of your vacant investment?
If your friends think that freedom to do that is utterly absurd and a society which defends that is fundamentally rotten then they are not liberals in the academic sense, however their substantially more leftist stance may be called liberalism in the political context you find yourselves in.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 4 months ago:
To clarify my question. What do you mean ‘actually liberal’ ideologies?
Like what are their thoughts on monetarism?private property? free association? private entities in markets? Debt and paying it, both private and state held?
If they think that the state should provide the means of subsistence of the entire populus, that property should in general be held in common and private property is not sacred, that government entities in a market are often more effective than private and/or that business should be heavily regulated to serve common good, that debts should be cancelled when it is not realistic or fair to pay them etc. Or perhaps even further afield positions like questioning nation States, police, militaries and boarders… well, then they are not in fact liberals haha.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 4 months ago:
What do they see as different between neoliberalism and classical liberalism. Neoliberalism is mostly a post-Keynesian revitalisation of classical liberal economic positions updated with modern banking practices and globalisation.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 4 months ago:
… everyone? hence my use of broadly? It has complete and utter ideological hegemony since like the 70s. If you study economics you study neoliberal economics and they don’t even bother specifying. All major political parties in the anglosphere and most of western Europe follow neoliberal ideology, even the green-left is largely neoliberal. There are basically no classical liberals left.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 4 months ago:
I think I misunderstood you.
See my other comment for why I think freedom is sort of a useless thing to frame anything around. At least without further clarification.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 4 months ago:
Reactionary ideologies are incoherent.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 4 months ago:
I think it’s tempting to try and be pithy but freedom is complicated. For some people freedom is an absolute, do what you want when you want. For some it is about theoretical possibilities, for example if you ask if people are free to quit there job the answer heavily depends on how someone balances theory vs practice. Others take a practical lens, freedom only counts if it’s plausible to do.
Sometimes freedom is about ideals. you are free to read all the political theory you like, you umm wont because it’s boring but if someone threatened that would you be upset? At other junctures freedom because pragmatic, “what use is freedom to read if I don’t have freedom to eat? I’ll trade one for the other” someone might say.
Some people rate permissions more than restrictions, some the opposite.
I don’t think it’s a concept we can really pin down. Everyone has their own interpretation and it’s not universally values: much as dominant ideologies often insist it is, the rise of fascism should hint that others care much less about it.
- Comment on Can someone define "liberal" (in its use as an insult) for me? 4 months ago:
Sigh, I’ll wade into this river of shit.
Liberalism is broadly understood as neoliberalism, which is an ideological descendant from classical liberalism. This ideology positions itself as being broadly in favour of individual freedom within a rather tight definition of freedom. Namely liberals are concerned with the ability of people to read what they like, own what they like, marry whomever they like and so on provided they do this inside of a system of capitalist free market exchange.
Modern liberalism tends to frown on heavy government intervention in market affairs, which they see as representing the free (and thus good) exchange of goods between individuals. They also tend to be broadly in favour of the militaristic western global hegemony.
Criticism of this attitude comes from 2 places.
-
too much freedom.
-
not enough freedom.
(1) is people that want women bound up in the kitchen and walk around with an odd gate that makes you remember Indiana Jones films
(2) are people (I’m in this camp) who see liberalism as a weak ideological position that favours stability over justice and, in so doing, ignores the suffering of billions.
-
- Comment on Dangerous drivers busted as part of ACT police’s new online reporting tool 4 months ago:
I fucking hate driving because of how a minority of others drive. Not the accidental mistakes etc but straight up psychotic maniacs: the tail gaters, the no indicators, the cutting in front to catch an exiters and so on.
But holy shit this isn’t a good solution. Something about our roads and cars turns people who might just be kinda abrasive into homicidal maniacs. The solution is to find and change whatever that is.
Spying on everyone is a terrible precedent and wont actually address the cause. When significant portions of the population do something the problem is systemic, you can’t punish/torture your way out of systemic flaws.
- Comment on If you had a drain that you knew was clogged only with hair, could you unclog the drain only using Nair? 5 months ago:
Lots of people are wrong. The stuff in Nair attacks sulfur bridges in keratine. This makes it physically fragile so you can scrape it off.
It doesn’t dissolve the keratin though.
In theory you could break it into lots of small pieces by say pointing a water jet down the drain (or plunging or whatever) after treatment. Whether this is enough to loosen it will have a lot to do with other stuff in the drain/geometry/penetration depth. It may just make a gel that plugs the drain.
- Comment on The Government playing word games with weapons to Israel - Michael West 5 months ago:
Fucking get em West.
Anyone surprised by this should watch yes minister. Ministers are extremely careful in precisely what they say, being the sort of people so utterly bereft of morality that they privilege what is legally provable over truth in the lay sense of the word.
Do you think every night albo drinks himself to sleep to silence the 25 year old version of him who probably thought he’d never sell out?
- Comment on Humans didn't invent agriculture 5 months ago:
pregnantgoku
- Comment on Humans didn't invent agriculture 5 months ago:
- Comment on ABC article alleges caucus concern over Fatima Payma being "guided by god". Smells of a character assassination to me. 5 months ago:
The chaser once again cutting through the media’s bullshit.
That closing line got a belly laugh from me.
- Comment on [Satire] Labor tells MPs to say “We encourage a broad range of views”, or face expulsion from party 5 months ago:
It’s always the same. Orgs love diversity as long as you’re leashed and muzzled.
Much easier to look like you’re bringing others to the table than actually make any concessions to other views.
- Comment on ABC article alleges caucus concern over Fatima Payma being "guided by god". Smells of a character assassination to me. 5 months ago:
It’s a higher standard than tabloid rags but I feel like they’re doing this a massive disservice by repeating it at all, especially without adding context such as the number of times various senators have mentioned religion, the mandatory religion in Parliament, and consequently that this is obviously an islamophobic smear campaign.
Their own stats say that very few people read more than the first paragraph (I can’t find them but they had this whole campaign on it using their metrics). It’s obviously inflammatory and most readers won’t remember the nuance, they’ll remember vague concerns of scary Muslim god stuff and not supporting Israel.
- Comment on ABC article alleges caucus concern over Fatima Payma being "guided by god". Smells of a character assassination to me. 5 months ago:
Yeah maybe, again though zero context and dubious evidence.
She might just not want a two state solution. That’s a reasonable stance, whether or not you think it would shake out nicely I can understand feeling like Israel is an illegitimate nation. At this point regardless of how it was founded enough reasonable people ended up there either through birth, feeling persecution, exile or sale (yep… countries sold Jewish people to Israel. Fucking horror show that is) that not allowing them to stay in at least some of the claimed area and self govern is naïve. Although I would probably feel differently if the state killed my parents, gaoled my spouse, and blew up my kid so my opinion is questionably neutral.
Would labour MPs support a 2 state solution of the second state was to be founded in Australia’s sovereign territory? maybe made up of fragments of their houses?
Giant fucking mess of a sitch.
- Comment on ABC article alleges caucus concern over Fatima Payma being "guided by god". Smells of a character assassination to me. 5 months ago:
Really? I got kicked out of Christian Education in highschool for eating a bible and I’ve said “It’s in God’s hand’s now”. Admittedly as a humourous way to sum up “I’ve done what I can, now we see how it shaked out” but all the same.
It’s just an idiom. No doubt sometimes people literally mean it as handing off responsibility to a supernatural, interventionist entity but I would not assume that without seeing evidence someone was a fundie.
- Comment on ABC article alleges caucus concern over Fatima Payma being "guided by god". Smells of a character assassination to me. 5 months ago:
That’s not the context she appears to have said it in. The quote appears to be in the context of whether she would support a bill requiring a two state solution as conditional for recognition. That is relayed by a third party and a reasonable assumption is the context being “It’s not up to me if this bill passes or not, I don’t know if I’d support it at the moment. Let’s see what happens”.
Remember, you are hearing a fragment of something said by an unnamed source who has the incentive to portray her as bad, and is likely trying to cover for labor continuing to absolutely nothing for Palistine while tacitly supporting crackdowns on protest.
- Comment on ABC article alleges caucus concern over Fatima Payma being "guided by god". Smells of a character assassination to me. 5 months ago:
Ain’t that the truth.
- Comment on ABC article alleges caucus concern over Fatima Payma being "guided by god". Smells of a character assassination to me. 5 months ago:
Depending on what you mean that might be naïve. As it stands something like half of us are religious and many people who are religious would say it significantly shapes their views on things.
It’s not even clear where the boundaries between religious and nonreligious views are sometimes.
I think it’s reasonable to ask for a politics that’s reasonable, earnest, compassionate, and understanding. I think it’s also true that fundamentalism can be awful and used to make frothing bigotry seem more reasonable than it is.
But idk, if someone says “a fundamental creed of some system I believe in is non violence and helping the weak, and I meditated on that in my appropriate cultural building last night, so I will be voting against the ‘kill the target minority’ bill proposed” is that such a bad or unreasonable thing?
I think there’s some nuance, and it doesn’t seem that much more silly than standing before an ocean storm, feeling the sublime, and that moment triggering a reduction in ego or whatever.
- ABC article alleges caucus concern over Fatima Payma being "guided by god". Smells of a character assassination to me.www.abc.net.au ↗Submitted 5 months ago to australianpolitics@aussie.zone | 20 comments
- Comment on [Labor senator] Fatima Payman says she's been 'exiled' and is 'reflecting on future' within Labor 5 months ago:
I think you’re ascribing too much benign intention to something which was realistically the result of a complex power struggle between monarchs, nobles, intellectual elites, and a new class of merchants/financiers where everyone was trying to use everyone else to fuck everyone else in their favour and riling up the proles as needed.
It’s not some planned genius system carefully crafted for utmost morality. It’s a way for rich business owners to get a slice of the pie normally reserved for nobles while offering enough compromises/threat of revolt to keep the smaller but culturally and militarily powerful class of old money happy enough.
Your participation as a prole is highly limited, you are basically unable, short of mass violence, to hold anyone accountable for any particular decision; you are not allowed to force certain things to even be discussed or debated. It is not a system made for you to participate in, it is a system where you have some (extremely limited) participation because your class of people were a piece on someone else’s board.
Compared to actual democratic institutions which work by consensus and direct representation, or representation at the continued will of a consensus body it is a joke. It does not require your consent, and what little privilege you have does not extent to any practical considerations in your life (housing, work etc) which remain dictatorial.
Dream bigger dude.