GarbageShoot [he/him]

I think that’s a counterproductive response.

Maybe there’s a rock out there made, by complete chance, in such huge proportion of silicon that it becomes more viable, I don’t give a shit. It was just an aside anyway, pick another based on the same principle if you like. Why an obligate biped? Why this size? Why not a flying creature? Why not a rotationally-symetrical monstrosity? Why not an intelligent species that physically couldn’t really be engineers but happen to live on the same planet as creatures who can? Or who just get contacted by outside life that can? I’m a dipshit who mostly prefers pulp and cosmic horror (read: fantasy) science fiction, so I’m sure someone who knows more could come up with more and better prompts.

I can’t help but notice that you didn’t list a whole lot of traits that would be considered vital to having a fairly human sillhouette. There’s nothing here about obligate bipedalism, for example, or having just two legs in the lower part of the body at all. There’s nothing here about how the forelimbs are articulated, and whether it would look meaningfully like hands or an array of dexterous tendrils or something. And all this gritty realist speculative biology seems out of place when most sci-fi is basically a particular sub-genre of fantasy anyway. Even being generous to the sci-fi writers, supposing the universe works in a fundamentally different way from how ours does (breaking laws of relativity and entropy, commonly), why can’t some ecosystems work out to stretch your imagination of what could be an advanced species? It all seems very narrowly prescriptivist, even beyond the fact that this is fiction to the point of taking negative liberties with the bounds of what is truly realistic.

Edit: idk, it just seems obtuse. Like, “Advanced life can only be carbon-based because being that way affords these benefits” without considering that other models could provide other benefits (I’m sure you know better than I about the use of silicon-based life in speculative biology). And that’s if the subject is addressed at all.

To their credit, I think the Principles of Communism thing is partially meant as a floodgate, since the devs really do believe in their project and want to avoid over-centralization from everyone defaulting to one instance. They know many people will go “What the hell? No!” and go somewhere else and that’s exactly the point. I’d be surprised if they really thought it would get almost anyone to engage with Marxism with the prompt, especially since you can copy the first sentence of the text and not read anything else (and even just reading it is not engaging with it). I think it’s more like a little joke.

Also, copying a sentence of your choice to a pamphlet is not a pledge and I think it’s silly to view it that way. If it helps, iirc, one of the sentences that appears is “No.” and they will accept that as an answer.

But assuming this was “promoting an ideology directly,” would you find it less sketchy for an instance to promote ideology indirectly? Because if you aren’t directly doing ideology, that just means you are indirectly doing it (sometimes very deliberately). Personally, I appreciate transparency.

Yeah, because they are all part of their respective instances and those instances (de)federate with each other. ml and ee are both good for that purpose. My own instance is bad for that purpose, but after spending some time on a more mainstream instance, I decided this was better for my mental health.

nor is it to “de-Nazify” Ukraine

I think they do want to do this, since the Nazis are extremely hostile to Russia, so it’s crushing the opposition. Obviously this is pretty different from the historical de-Nazification efforts whose corpse Putin cynically puppets as cover for his actions.

If there are meaningful factions of Greater Russia Nazis in Ukraine, he’d obviously be fine with those as he is fine with them in Russia.

in middle east i wish everyone involved regime change, situation is fucked with any of current people in power staying in power. Put Netanyahu, Assad, Erdogan, Khamenei and their cabinets and top people from Hezbollah in Hague then we can talk.

Great man theory doesn’t stop being great man theory if you add “and their cabinets” after.

At some point you need to engage with the problem of why things are the way they are, and the answer isn’t “The bad guy is in charge (and his cabinet)”

I appreciate your good humor since I think I came off as hostile

IMO the fact that fastfood jobs are considered temporary bootstrap jobs that you’re expected to be exploited to hell is bullshit and an indication of the absolutely broken moral compass of the corporate world. We could do without fast food, but that doesn’t mean we should pay them them minimum wage. Everyone deserves a livable wage no matter what they do.

I guess my perspective is that we’re talking about what OP wants to do in the present world, not what she could do in a hypothetical utopia (or just fairer society). So yeah, fast food jobs could be less terrible and should be, but at the moment they are absolutely not something to aspire to or even to recommend in many places because, again, they don’t even pay enough to live. Maybe OP is still living for free with a friend, in which case I guess it’s better than nothing, but in general it seems bad as a survival strategy.

Speaking for myself as someone who was dismissive, my best contribution to the answers here is that it’s reductionist to a seriously misleading extent. It seems like you have a couple of conditions contributing to your struggle, but it all gets reduced to “your number is too low.” As others have alluded to, how much of that is your adhd? How much is from some condition you may have that hasn’t been diagnosed because you have been unsupported throughout your life? I don’t think anyone is denying that you have real neurological conditions that hinder you, they just doubt low IQ as being a meaningful description of what you’re facing compared to something that gives a better causal explanation.

I’m sorry about how you were treated. That was fucked up and you didn’t deserve it.

I don’t think it’s over for you, it’ll just be difficult. You’re clearly able to overcome (presumably with effort and time) some of what you talk about since this is pretty well written.

Alcohol is pretty hazardous on all levels (I assume that’s what you cite as an addiction) but if you need pot to function, I see no problem with that besides it being another expense. It’s probably worth finding a support group in your area with respect to the alcoholism, though.

As far as I know, low IQ, insofar as we treat it as a credible concept at all, doesn’t correspond to not being able to do things, but it just taking longer to learn them. That’s probably not much of a consolation with respect to all that you’ve been through, but it’s relevant for looking forward because it means you don’t need to write things off as being something “for smarter people,” though there are definitely circumstances where the extra time it takes could make something not viable (like needing more time in college representing a significantly greater financial burden, possibly).

I think you can do it. Just remember that there is no shame in leaning on others; We’re a social, cooperative species.

If everyone was engineers and lawyers we’d have major problems keeping shops and fastfood open.

Alright, this is a little condescending. I think OP can aim a little higher than that and frankly probably will need to if she wants a living wage.

The fast food industry is basically a way for corporations to extract a pretty significant amount of labor value out of teenagers and the most desperate in society and all for the end result of contributing to society’s bad health. It’s not like society would collapse without it, unlike something like carpentry.

Lastly, insofar as IQ is a valid concept at all, studies say low IQ alone doesn’t prevent you from learning anything, it just makes it take longer to learn.

Edit: I apologize if it comes off like I’m going off on you, I just felt some things were worth noting. I like the rest of your comment.

I didn’t realize Mohammed bin Salman is part of KHamas.

The one is not the other

Frequently they blame ““communist”” politicians for letting the immigrants in

I see. I neglected an interpretation and it was important. So if someone says, for example and not necessarily making assertions about the OOP, that “I’m trans because I was born with a micropenis and that fuckin’ sucks,” your internal response would be “This person is trans, but doesn’t understand why they are trans.” [Or that it is likely that they don’t understand, and see what I said before about this implying it is true of some hypothetical people]

Is that a more fair representation of your view?

(I put this under the wrong comment at first somehow, but also I was partly using information from that one)

deleted by creator

We’re talking about an imagined person whose internality we have access to. If you acknowledge that, within the assumptions of your own ideology, there could be people that are “likely not trans”, that means essentially that there is an array of different possible stipulated people and some of them are trans, but most of them aren’t. Another way to put it is that, if you said you were “80% sure” that someone wasn’t trans that means, depending on certain unknown variables that actually determine the truth of that guess, there are 20 possible worlds where they are trans and 80 where they aren’t.

All this to say, based on what you expressed ideologically originally and even in your refutation, it is consistent to stipulate a self-identified trans person who you identify as not trans, even if you would never tell a person that in real life (out of respect, because it involves information you can’t access, etc.). Does that make sense? I feel like I got a little bogged down in adjectives, but I felt obliged to explain myself further given the “Excuse you”.

You can’t tell in the movie but in the script, all his lines and stage directions are written in greentext.

This very well may be fake, but it’s also entirely possible to identify as trans for any number of reasons. You might say such a person is “not really” trans but, supposing that is true, there’s no contradiction between that and some person who doesn’t have such ideological convictions having a thought process like you see in this image and acting on it.

That said, I agree that it’s probably fake, though I’m not as confident that the poster is a cis impersonator.

I should clarify that my position is that I use AD/BC in everyday speech, but if I had to actually publish something public facing, I certainly would use the CE/BCE system for the obvious reasons. My objection to you was not that using the system is bad, but that it’s a trivial thing and therefore (by my attempted implication) an annoying and pointless thing to try to “correct” someone on.

So I did actually read the link, and I didn’t know all of the history, but I did have pretty good familiarity with modern Discourse about it as the article outlines. I would say the only compelling addition is this:

Roman Catholic priest and writer on interfaith issues Raimon Panikkar argued that the BCE/CE usage is the less inclusive option since they are still using the Christian calendar numbers and forcing it on other nations. In 1993, the English-language expert Kenneth G. Wilson speculated a slippery slope scenario in his style guide that, “if we do end by casting aside the AD/BC convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system [that is, the method of numbering years] itself, given its Christian basis.”

I’d really like for the numbering system to change, so I suppose that’s an argument in favor of being annoying.