Sotuanduso

Sotuanduso , 12 days ago

Windows updates aren't disruptive if you actually update now and then. It's not even that often.

Sotuanduso , 12 days ago

Do they do that? I've had my laptop for a while, and it's never happened to me.

Sotuanduso , 12 days ago

What is with you people?

Sotuanduso , 11 days ago

I know... Anyways, I'm looking forward to going home this weekend. Maybe I'll make myself a cold hotdog with the works when I get there, that's always a good choice.

Sotuanduso , 12 days ago

Ever heard of the Tony Hawk blood skateboard? (Or skateboards? I dunno.)

Sotuanduso , 13 days ago

Technically, yes, everything is political if you make it political. But you have to make it political first. Petting your cat isn't inherently political unless you bring up the government policies and economical structures that allow you to own the cat in the first place, or compare your attitude towards the cat to a political stance, or something else of that ilk.

In the same way, everything is scientific if you study it scientifically, and everything is theological if you consider it from a theological perspective. It's technically true, but that doesn't make it useful. It says more about the way you think than the nature of reality, especially as politics are a social construct.

Sotuanduso , 13 days ago

That's true to an extent. It's more about avoiding arguments, though, and less about whether the view is orthodox.

For example, some views are so out there and unaligned that people will just think it's a joke and not fault you unless you start seriously arguing for it, like if you say murder should be legal.

On the other hand, some orthodox views would still get restricted because they're contentious. Like if you start talking about how you believe in equal rights, that's something most people agree with (at least in principle,) and it shouldn't be political. But it's going to ruffle some feathers anyways (especially if you get any more specific than that,) so it'd be restricted.

So basically, it either has to be so out there that people won't think you're serious, or so commonplace that people won't even consider that it could result in arguments.

Sotuanduso , 13 days ago

I don't have a strong sense of what's mainstream because I usually only engage with politics in a left-leaning online space that was popularized by a protest against a corporation. Can you think of anything mainstream that's likely to get a pass? I'm 80% sure if you can, it's going to be because someone will see it and not even consider that it could cause an argument because it's such a given... I'll drop that down to 50% if you're trying to pick an example to prove me wrong.

Sotuanduso , 15 days ago

Yeah, and taking time to rest actually makes you more productive.

Sotuanduso , 15 days ago

If I had a million dollars, I could eat a burger for breakfast tomorrow.

Sotuanduso , 13 days ago

This is true, though we might be better without defining productivity in terms of what we do for our employer.

Sotuanduso , 17 days ago

Would it have them to push it to the 13rd?

Sotuanduso , 18 days ago (edited 17 days ago)

Maybe try researching church finances instead of going by the assumption that they're greedy because they're asking for money and look like your enemy.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot it's a not-good to ask someone to do research without demonstrating my own. Unfortunately, I have other things I should be doing than research right now.

Sotuanduso , 18 days ago

I think the idea is that you give loans to the needy, and do so out of generosity, hoping to get your money back but not relying on it. It's one of those things where the law does not work without the spirit.

Sotuanduso , 18 days ago

It's still meaningful because it is helping people, but it's probably not going to count in your favor spiritually. Unless you're supporting getting the system set up or keeping it in place I guess.

Sotuanduso , 17 days ago

That would mean rich donors end up “lending” money to the government for “no interest”. I’m sure in return they would receive zero favors or benefits of any kind.

That can happen under just about any system.

Sotuanduso , 17 days ago

Right, that's what taxes are for.

Sotuanduso , 18 days ago

You're not using a command line web browser? I wouldn't either.

Sotuanduso , 19 days ago

Not sure about the second one. What happens if a middle manager does it without the executive's knowledge?

Sotuanduso , 26 days ago

You don't want to sell me death rolls.

Sotuanduso , 26 days ago

You want to go home and rethink your life.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

Technically all the meetings we've had before this one are prior.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

I mainly use it for random things that I don't want to influence my recommendations, like clickbait YouTube videos.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

I had salt and vinegar crickets. They were good, as long as you didn't try to savor them.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

Why are conservatives what come to mind when you hear of salt and vinegar crickets?

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

I've seen this kind of thinking, but I still just think about the time I ate crickets.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

You should try it if you can. It's much nicer thinking of culinary experiences than thinking of people making political drama over bugs of all things.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

Freakin liberals trying to push their vegan agenda, smh my hands.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

If you kill an oil executive, a new one will take their place. You've gotta go after the company instead, that'll have a more direct impact and be harder to replace, especially if paired with regulation.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

"I am trying to test your programming skills, not your Google-search skills."

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

"me on it" - kamenLady., 2024

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

Steam but colder.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

Is it actually Taylor Swift?

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

That's why I asked. Wasn't sure if it was a joke about the name, or if it's someone pretending to be Taylor Swift, or the real deal (which I never heard of because I don't follow Taylor Swift - or because it's not real.)

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

Oh man, you got me. And I used to do that exact prank!

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

That being said, it does seem that its the areas with lots of churches that create the conditions for homelessness

Huh? Is this like a red state/blue state thing, or do you have something to indicate that towns with more churches generate more homeless? It doesn't really make sense to me because homelessness is tied to housing prices, and cities are where housing is more expensive, and the ratio of church to population is probably a lot lower in cities.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

I do not understand these downvotes. Like how dare you see churches that actually help the poor like they're supposed to?

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

Well it can't be exclusively caused by red states, but I see what you mean. I'm just not a fan of the implication that churches have something to do with it.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

You conflate Christianity with Republicanism. Please do not act like churches are the mastermind behind politicians who use vaguely church-scented branding to try to pander to Christians while acting against many of the principles laid out in the Bible.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

Am I reading this right? Are you saying that churches are worse than house-hoarding landlords, just because they think they're doing good but a lot of them don't? Even the 18% of churches that rent their buildings from other churches^[1]^ (or the ones that rent non-church properties like theaters or schools,) and thus almost certainly don't even have a property they could give? Or what about the 48% of churches that run or support a food pantry^[2]^, and are thus doing good?

[1] - https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2018/fall-state-of-church-ministry/two-churches-one-roof.html
[2] - https://theconversation.com/nearly-half-of-all-churches-and-other-faith-institutions-help-people-get-enough-to-eat-170074

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

Well thanks, but to be fair, I was asking Scrubbles. When it comes to an opinion I disagree with, it's more fruitful to talk to the person who holds that opinion than it is to deride the opinion with someone else who already agrees with me. Partially because there's a good chance of a misunderstanding.

Not to say the rest of your remark is invalid, just addressing the first sentence where you seem to be speaking on Scrubbles' behalf.

Sotuanduso , 1 month ago

Nah, fastandcurious started the convo.

Sotuanduso , 2 months ago

I just looked that up, and I feel sorry for those students. I'm imagining they were trying to make an AI that does realistic movement like that Google experiment, and when it failed and ended up weird, they thought they were gonna fail their assignment, until one of them thought "we can call this zombie movement and still get a pass."

Then they show up to present it and this guy says not that it's trash, but that it's offensive because he has a disabled friend. You can see the sorrow on the presenter's face. I'm not sure he had any way of knowing that the guy would react that way. Who looks at creepy horror movement and thinks "this is offensive to disabled people"?

They didn't just fail, they got dishonored, and I'm not sure that was justified, though I don't know the whole context.

Sotuanduso , 2 months ago

I don't know DuckDuckGo, but what's the purpose of trying to compete with it? This is not a rhetorical question. Is there something wrong with DuckDuckGo, something you feel you can do better, or are you just making a competitor for the principle?

Sotuanduso , 2 months ago

Hmm, I see what you mean. Glimse's comment thread is about that topic.

Sotuanduso , 2 months ago

Thanks for mentioninng Umberto Eco's 14 traits of fascism. I hadn't seen them before, but the summary was a good read. I'll list them out here, with a few tweaks to the phrasing because I'm like that:

1. Tradition has all the answers.
2. Rejection of modern culture.
3. Action for action's sake.
4. Disagreement is treason.
5. Fear of difference - and different people.
6. Middle class vs lower class.
7. The enemy is always scheming something.
8. The enemy is both dangerous and weak.
9. If you're not fighting, you're with the enemy.
10. Chauvinism.
11. Everyone must be a hero of the cause.
12. Machismo.
13. The common will, as interpreted by the leader, subsumes individual opinions.
14. Control of language to control thought.

I can accept this definition. It's notably not meant to say "it's only fascism if it covers all 14 points." Eco states that fascism might coagulate around only one of these points, but I don't think that should be taken to mean "if it meets one point, it's fascism," just that it could be. Otherwise, an order of knights is a fascist regime for meeting point 11.

I think it's also valuable to take these points and do a little introspection to make sure you're not being fascist (or fascist-like) yourself. I know my beliefs can be construed to hit around 2-5 of the points partially.

---

All that said... What you defined is violent systemic chauvinism (I'll call it VSC for short.) There's definitely major overlap between that and fascism, but I don't think it covers all of fascism, and I think it covers things that are fascist-adjacent without technically being fascist (even though they're still very evil.) For example, you could have a more communist flavor of VSC where the majority demographic of the middle class actually rules themselves and gets violent against anyone else, but it's not fascism because there isn't a placable dictator or even oligarchy. Or you could theoretically have a fascist regime without chauvinism, which doesn't meet VSC.

Sotuanduso , 2 months ago

Sure. Be warned that my arguments aren't rock-solid here. I'm not a professional debater, I'm a casual who prefers to portray my thoughts more honestly rather than filtering out the inconvenient.

Fascism that isn't covered by VSC

See 1984. Even though they don't directly target minorities (or maybe I missed that part, either way it's not prominent,) they still check all the other boxes of fascism and are very evil. If you think chauvinism is a necessary component of fascism, you might delude yourself into thinking a movement is okay because they're not fascist (especially if they portray their enemies as fascists, making them the lesser of two evils,) and unknowingly become a fascist yourself.

VSC that isn't fascism

The definition you gave includes a systemic combination of power imbalance, chauvinism, and violence. Totalitarianism is not necessary there. You could take an otherwise normal country, and if anyone with the authority to do so tells them "anyone who's not a straight white person is lesser and not protected by the law," it immediately fits the bill of VSC (if I interpreted it correctly.)

Don't get me wrong, this is dangerously close to fascism, but the key difference is that straight white people are allowed to disagree and perhaps even campaign for equal treatment. They're not being coerced into violence, just encouraged by the statements and lack of punishment for doing so.

I don't have a problem with condemning this just as much as you'd condemn fascism, and it's definitely fascist-adjacent. But I don't want fascism redefined to include fascist-adjacentism, because then there's a new ring of fascist-adjacentism ready to get redefined in as well, and no clear stopping point.

I know this is a bit of a slippery slope, but if you're able to frame an ideology such that everything evil to you is fascist, then it becomes convenient to think that only fascism is evil, and miss non-fascist evil. I don't expect you to fall into that pitfall, but I expect that if this trend continues, some people will. That's where it's utility-negative.

Sotuanduso , 2 months ago

Huh, I hadn't considered that chauvinism doesn't have to be demographic-based. Yeah, that makes a difference.