Stating that civilians should be acceptable as military targets is worse than calling them evil lol
Call me evil all you want, but at least give me the courtesy of not trying to kill me if I don't have any military relevance. Even the Nazis received that courtesy
He caught you being a hypocrite my guy. The Schrodinger's civilian line is straight up bigotry. You're judging Israelis by a different criteria than other human beings and dehumanizing them in order to make the argument that it is acceptable to target civilians as long as they are Israeli. You're not willing to grant Israelis the same rights that you would grant to the civilian population of any other country, such as Russia; i.e., you are bigoted towards Israelis.
Wow, that is an insane trivia pull. I didn't even know Castle in the Sky was partially based on Gullivers Travels, let alone the additional lore. I gotta put some extra respect on Jonathan Swift's name. I had previously mainly associated him with A Modest Proposal, which is an incredibly clever satirical work in its own right.
The relationship between elites and non-elites doesn't necessarily need to be exploitative. There should be a give and take that is currently lacking in our society. Nor does the discrepancy need to be so stark; in reality there is always a spectrum of capabilities and responsibilities in society. For instance, who are the elites of the 21st century? Is it only the politicians and billionaires? Doesn't it also include the educated class of first world countries? Doctors, lawyers, corporate bureaucrats, academics, engineers, IT specialists, journalists, etc? All of those groups are crucial parts in implementing the oppressive systems that the elites preside over. You could go even further if you'd like and include anybody who has a job, or anybody who resides in a developed country without actively trying to revolt against the system. From the perspective of the global poor, that's an entirely valid position to take.
When we reduce our understanding of society to a simple dichotomy of elites exploiting the rest of us, we fail to comprehend the problem, and thus we fail to produce adequate solutions. We are all more a part of the problem than we would like to admit, but the counterpart to that fact is that we are all more capable of being a part of the solution that we realize. The people sitting at the very top would not have the ability to exploit people as they do without utilizing the vast number of educated professionals and skilled workers who make their schemes possible. This is linked to the fact that simply removing the worst and most powerful elites never seems to get us anywhere, because there are always people sitting directly beneath them in the vast sociopolitical hierarchy who have already been groomed to take their place.
::: spoiler tangent
But as I was saying initially about the give and take. Historically, there have been some pretty major downsides to being part of an elite class, namely that if your tribe/kingdom/empire gets defeated, whether by internal or external forces, you get killed. Whereas the common people would be able to survive under the new regime. New boss, same as the old boss kinda deal. In hereditary systems of power exchange, the aristocracy often exists under tremendous pressure, where they lack the freedom to even marry the person they love, let alone follow their dreams or anything of the sort. The heir to the throne would rarely have a choice to avoid their fate, because to renounce the throne would likely to result in their death, as the new dynasty would prefer to tie up any loose ends and prevent any future rebellions or restorations. Your family and peers could rarely be your friends, because you could never be sure if they were plotting against you to gain an advantage. The elite classes of modern society also have burdens that they must bear in order to maintain their status, although not so apparently as the monarchs of old.
:::
I've gotten onto some major tangets here and haven't really responded to your comment. To attempt to answer your question, I'd say that the hope lies not in eliminating hierarchies in general, but in reducing them to a manageable level. For instance, the hierarchy of a small town, or a small business, or a sports team, or even a family. People have their roles to play, and some are more crucial than others, but there is a necessity for everyone to work together and it's possible for people to understand and appreciate other roles and even move between them fairly seamlessly. Obviously that doesn't mean that smaller hierarchies always function that way, but its possible for them to, and we could theoretically figure out how to optimize them with our current level of knowledge and technology.
It's the scale and interconnectivity of modern society, and civilization in general, that's responsible for producing the massively expanded hierarchies that create so much suffering and conflict. Human beings aren't equipped to deal with such complex arrangements, and thus our inherent instincts for compassion and cooperation are overwhelmed and bypassed.
I didn't really explain it well, but I wasn't really trying to say it was like that. When I say it kinda breaks you apart I mean in a good way, like when you start crushing on someone and in the honeymoon phase, you start to envision how your life could be together with that person instead of just alone. So it changes the way you view yourself and your future.
But yea, breaking up with a mature person for normal reasons shouldn't totally shatter you. But it does hurt more than a sprained ankle imo. You can't ice your heart 😭
I was on one yesterday for some reason. Had a lot of energy and a lot of time. I think it was because I got a bunch of sleep this week when I haven't been getting much sleep at all over the past few months
I hope you realize that I have been genuine with you.
I don't realize that at all. I've presented you with comprehensive discussion points and you've responded with snide passive aggressive snipes. You responded to my detailed argument with an intentional misunderstanding to imply that I was islamophobic, and then continued to passive aggressively fuck with me for kicks. Your talent for gaslighting is exceptional though, I begrudgingly commend you for that.
It's hard for me to know whether I am dealing with people who are genuinely misunderstanding my arguments, or if they are simply trying to cast doubt on my conclusions by pretending to misunderstand how I arrived at them. Given the length of my comments and the relative brevity of yours, I am leaning towards you belonging to the latter group. If you were genuine, you would explain what you mean without being ambiguous and respond to at least a portion of the points I have already made, as a demonstration of good faith. Please make better use of your time.
Wow, super interesting article. I love how they simply describe it as hazing the wildlife. Pretty sure I've never heard that term outside of a human-human context, but it's a funny way to describe what they're trying to do.
This anecdote was also funny
Lackey once responded to a call from Tahoe, where the lead singer of the 1980s hair band Whitesnake had a house. A bear had broken into the house, swam in the indoor pool and was ambling down the hall toward the recording studio. By the time Lackey made it up there the bear was gone, so he set a trap. A couple days later, a bear was caught.
When Lackey arrived at the property and looked in the trap, he noticed it was a different bear than the prior one. As Lackey was dealing with the trapped bear, the bear he intended to trap walked past, ignoring Lackey and his bear dogs, and headed for the house. Lackey released the dogs, and they immediately chased the bear up a tree.
I guess this kind of thing happens when you build a 10,000 foot estate in a remote area that was formerly wilderness until fairly recently. Good for the bears, ransack that house for all it's worth. Late 80s music has to be among the worst eras in popular music history. That shit has not aged well, and I resent the fact that this dude became a multimillionaire from that bland garbage.
In my experience, every crosspost should have the link on the top. That's the actual crosspost link. The one in the body of the text is kinda a bonus one that can be deleted according to the poster's preference. But you're right, the one in the body is also a hard link (goes to home instance of post) while the one in the top is a relative link (goes to your home instance). So I guess if your instance doesn't federate the community that the crosspost was originally from, then the top link might not show up? I don't remember encountering that but I guess I wouldn't necessarily have noticed.
Can you provide an example of a crosspost that doesn't show the link in the top part?
The people who left reddit to join Lemmy aren't representative of the average reddit user. They consisted of a fraction of a percent of the userbase and generally were the type to be calling out bad information hygiene. It might surprise you, but everyone who ever used reddit doesn't behave in the exact same way or value the same exact things. Tbh, I think the information hygiene was much better here shortly after the API exodus, and it has slowly degraded again over the past few years.
Btw I never heard information hygiene before but I'm going to keep using that, it's a great term.
I'm sorry to have to inform you of this, but it's possible you might be a bot.
Good lord. This guy just racked up 306 downvotes and only 4 upvotes in his eight comments on this post. That's gotta be some kind of record
Stating that civilians should be acceptable as military targets is worse than calling them evil lol
Call me evil all you want, but at least give me the courtesy of not trying to kill me if I don't have any military relevance. Even the Nazis received that courtesy
He caught you being a hypocrite my guy. The Schrodinger's civilian line is straight up bigotry. You're judging Israelis by a different criteria than other human beings and dehumanizing them in order to make the argument that it is acceptable to target civilians as long as they are Israeli. You're not willing to grant Israelis the same rights that you would grant to the civilian population of any other country, such as Russia; i.e., you are bigoted towards Israelis.
Wow, that is an insane trivia pull. I didn't even know Castle in the Sky was partially based on Gullivers Travels, let alone the additional lore. I gotta put some extra respect on Jonathan Swift's name. I had previously mainly associated him with A Modest Proposal, which is an incredibly clever satirical work in its own right.
The relationship between elites and non-elites doesn't necessarily need to be exploitative. There should be a give and take that is currently lacking in our society. Nor does the discrepancy need to be so stark; in reality there is always a spectrum of capabilities and responsibilities in society. For instance, who are the elites of the 21st century? Is it only the politicians and billionaires? Doesn't it also include the educated class of first world countries? Doctors, lawyers, corporate bureaucrats, academics, engineers, IT specialists, journalists, etc? All of those groups are crucial parts in implementing the oppressive systems that the elites preside over. You could go even further if you'd like and include anybody who has a job, or anybody who resides in a developed country without actively trying to revolt against the system. From the perspective of the global poor, that's an entirely valid position to take.
When we reduce our understanding of society to a simple dichotomy of elites exploiting the rest of us, we fail to comprehend the problem, and thus we fail to produce adequate solutions. We are all more a part of the problem than we would like to admit, but the counterpart to that fact is that we are all more capable of being a part of the solution that we realize. The people sitting at the very top would not have the ability to exploit people as they do without utilizing the vast number of educated professionals and skilled workers who make their schemes possible. This is linked to the fact that simply removing the worst and most powerful elites never seems to get us anywhere, because there are always people sitting directly beneath them in the vast sociopolitical hierarchy who have already been groomed to take their place.
::: spoiler tangent But as I was saying initially about the give and take. Historically, there have been some pretty major downsides to being part of an elite class, namely that if your tribe/kingdom/empire gets defeated, whether by internal or external forces, you get killed. Whereas the common people would be able to survive under the new regime. New boss, same as the old boss kinda deal. In hereditary systems of power exchange, the aristocracy often exists under tremendous pressure, where they lack the freedom to even marry the person they love, let alone follow their dreams or anything of the sort. The heir to the throne would rarely have a choice to avoid their fate, because to renounce the throne would likely to result in their death, as the new dynasty would prefer to tie up any loose ends and prevent any future rebellions or restorations. Your family and peers could rarely be your friends, because you could never be sure if they were plotting against you to gain an advantage. The elite classes of modern society also have burdens that they must bear in order to maintain their status, although not so apparently as the monarchs of old. :::
I've gotten onto some major tangets here and haven't really responded to your comment. To attempt to answer your question, I'd say that the hope lies not in eliminating hierarchies in general, but in reducing them to a manageable level. For instance, the hierarchy of a small town, or a small business, or a sports team, or even a family. People have their roles to play, and some are more crucial than others, but there is a necessity for everyone to work together and it's possible for people to understand and appreciate other roles and even move between them fairly seamlessly. Obviously that doesn't mean that smaller hierarchies always function that way, but its possible for them to, and we could theoretically figure out how to optimize them with our current level of knowledge and technology.
It's the scale and interconnectivity of modern society, and civilization in general, that's responsible for producing the massively expanded hierarchies that create so much suffering and conflict. Human beings aren't equipped to deal with such complex arrangements, and thus our inherent instincts for compassion and cooperation are overwhelmed and bypassed.
You love to see it
I didn't really explain it well, but I wasn't really trying to say it was like that. When I say it kinda breaks you apart I mean in a good way, like when you start crushing on someone and in the honeymoon phase, you start to envision how your life could be together with that person instead of just alone. So it changes the way you view yourself and your future.
But yea, breaking up with a mature person for normal reasons shouldn't totally shatter you. But it does hurt more than a sprained ankle imo. You can't ice your heart 😭
You could make your own Europe community with blackjack and hookers 🤷
I was on one yesterday for some reason. Had a lot of energy and a lot of time. I think it was because I got a bunch of sleep this week when I haven't been getting much sleep at all over the past few months
I don't realize that at all. I've presented you with comprehensive discussion points and you've responded with snide passive aggressive snipes. You responded to my detailed argument with an intentional misunderstanding to imply that I was islamophobic, and then continued to passive aggressively fuck with me for kicks. Your talent for gaslighting is exceptional though, I begrudgingly commend you for that.
It's hard for me to know whether I am dealing with people who are genuinely misunderstanding my arguments, or if they are simply trying to cast doubt on my conclusions by pretending to misunderstand how I arrived at them. Given the length of my comments and the relative brevity of yours, I am leaning towards you belonging to the latter group. If you were genuine, you would explain what you mean without being ambiguous and respond to at least a portion of the points I have already made, as a demonstration of good faith. Please make better use of your time.
I don't understand what you are trying to say, sorry.
Ok, I'm stumped on that one. Usually it works like I explained but I don't know what happened there.
Wow, super interesting article. I love how they simply describe it as hazing the wildlife. Pretty sure I've never heard that term outside of a human-human context, but it's a funny way to describe what they're trying to do.
This anecdote was also funny
I guess this kind of thing happens when you build a 10,000 foot estate in a remote area that was formerly wilderness until fairly recently. Good for the bears, ransack that house for all it's worth. Late 80s music has to be among the worst eras in popular music history. That shit has not aged well, and I resent the fact that this dude became a multimillionaire from that bland garbage.
This is the irl reason, nobody wants to see that
In my experience, every crosspost should have the link on the top. That's the actual crosspost link. The one in the body of the text is kinda a bonus one that can be deleted according to the poster's preference. But you're right, the one in the body is also a hard link (goes to home instance of post) while the one in the top is a relative link (goes to your home instance). So I guess if your instance doesn't federate the community that the crosspost was originally from, then the top link might not show up? I don't remember encountering that but I guess I wouldn't necessarily have noticed.
Can you provide an example of a crosspost that doesn't show the link in the top part?
thanks bae 😘
The people who left reddit to join Lemmy aren't representative of the average reddit user. They consisted of a fraction of a percent of the userbase and generally were the type to be calling out bad information hygiene. It might surprise you, but everyone who ever used reddit doesn't behave in the exact same way or value the same exact things. Tbh, I think the information hygiene was much better here shortly after the API exodus, and it has slowly degraded again over the past few years.
Btw I never heard information hygiene before but I'm going to keep using that, it's a great term.