Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

agamemnonymous

@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Do you? "Thousands" is the word in question here

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

They're good when they're crumbled as an ingredient or topping. As-is they're gross.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Bore rhymes with tore. Tour is closer to sewer

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Closer to sewer, or "doer" or "fewer". Compress it to one syllable. Think "ooh" not "ohh".

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

You said you'd never heard it that way, I just wanted to clarify that I communicated the right pronunciation since "sewer" is a bit more drawn out than I meant to imply. All good

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

This is ridiculous. There are a lot of sanctimonious fundamentalists in the world, and there are a lot of genuinely good people who identify as Christian. Some of the best people I know are Christians. They're not inherently hateful bigots, in fact I'd wager those are a loud minority.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

This is nonsense. The bad people who call themselves Christians are the ones cherry picking bigotry. The Christian message is, fundamentally, "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:30-31). There are a lot of hateful bigots who put a cross on the building, and those are the loud minority. A good Christian is one who prays quietly alone at home, not shoving their religion in other people's faces (Matthew 5:6).

Westboro Baptists are bad Christians, as are any others who spew hate and intolerance against others.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Okay. When I say "Christian" I'm referring to followers of the teachings of Jesus. Lots of people have a lot of commentary about a lot of things. One of those people was Paul, who wasn't a disciple and never met Jesus. Timothy is, purportedly, Paul's correspondence with some guy named Timothy. There are many who feel that Paul seriously corrupted the original Christian message.

Forgive me if I don't consider the Pauline epistles to be representative of the core Christian message.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

The Bible is the Torah + the Gospels of Jesus + a ton of editorialized commentary, filtered through multiple stages of politicized selection. Yes, the fundamentals fit on a post it: love God with all your heart, love your neighbor as yourself. All the rest is parables and commentary, some by Jesus, some by less gregarious personages.

Some modern "Christians" obsess over the less gregarious commentaries (e.g. Paul), some obsess over twisted interpretations of these already twisted commentaries. Such is history.

But the message is the golden rule: love thy neighbor as thyself. All the rest is parables to illustrate variations on that theme. The bad stuff was added later, and it's the same exact bad stuff that creeps into any emergent structure. Shitty people will gravitate to The Current Popular Thing to peddle their shitty ideologies, especially if they can creep in under the premise of divine sanction.

You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe that centuries-later editorialization by opportunistic shit-heads is representative of the core ideologies of an older movement.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

You said you blame capitalism for problems, I assume you like Communism/Socialism?

Stalin co-opted Communism, that means Communism supports authoritarianism right? National Socialists are obviously Socialists since they took the name and published a lot of stuff right? That means Good Communists support Siberian prison work camps and Good Socialists support the Holocaust, right? Any Communist or Socialist who acts like a decent human being in spite of the evils done in the name of a twisted simulacrum of Communism or Socialism is a Bad Communist/Socialist, right?

Otherwise, you'd have to acknowledge that sometimes, over the course of a movement, bad actors try to co-opt the name of that movement for their own corrupt personal gain, and that sometimes if those bad actors have secured significant political influence they can manufacture consensus on the "official" beliefs of that movement through "official" publications.

So choose: is Hitler a Good Socialist, or is Paul a Bad Christian?

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

There's no difference, you're just a hypocrite. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: either a message is corruptible, or it isn't. Either the total corpus of Christianity/Communism is canon, or it isn't. Either the evils enshrined in later "Communist" literature is sacrosanct, or the evils enshrined in later "Christian" literature is suspect. "The Bible" is a political corruption of Christianity no less than modern China is a political corruption of Communism. If the Bible denotes the definitive Christianity, then Mao denotes the definitive Marxism.

To claim otherwise it's hypocritical double-speak. Are you a hypocrite, or do you acknowledge the Bible might be a slightly more politically compromised document than you've heretofore claimed?

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

The Bible is a particular selection of disparate writings collected over centuries and codified millennia after the events described.

By like comparison, Communism as a corpus is composed of the exploits of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

The gospels of Christianity are more similar to the Manifesto itself, and contain none of the dictatorships or genocides to which you allude. The gospels do not encourage slavery. If you judge the Bible based on the commentaries and political corruptions, then so judge Communism by gulags and genocides. If one is corruption, then both are. If one is canon, then both are. If you judge Christianity by Paul, judge Communism by Mao. Mao published. Paul published. If it's unfair to judge Communism by Mao, it's unfair to judge Christianity by Paul.

Make up your mind.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

So you are cherry picking your flavor of Communism.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

As I said, hypocrisy.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

The exposure of your own hypocrisy? I can understand why you'd be opposed to that. That doesn't make your opposition righteous. Mostly just sad.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Do you think your behavior elevates the fundamental equality implicit to communism?

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Clearly you're a Bad Communist, or perhaps a Good Communist by Mao's metric

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

If continuing is desperation, why do you keep trying to get the last comment yourself?

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

As is obvious. If you'd like, I can recommend you a 2000 year old source who spoke at great length about hypocrisy.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

The billionaire space race does benefit us. Also billionaires should be taxed much higher. Also billionaires shouldn't exist because workers should receive a fair proportional percentage of their companies' profits, not just flat wages. Multiple things can be true.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Move fast and break things, I guess. My take away is that the genie isn't going back in the bottle. Hopefully failing fast and loud gets us through the growing pains quickly, but on an individual level we'd best be vigilant and adapt to the landscape.

Frankly I'd rather these big obvious failures to insidious little hidden ones the conservative path makes. At least now we know to be skeptical. No development path is perfect, if it were more conservative we might get used to taking results at face value, leaving us more vulnerable to that inevitable failure.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Because one stands a chance of winning, the other does not.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Yes, "we", consisting of statistically significant factions of the voting population. Campaigns take time and money, neither of which any candidates besides the two front-runners have enough of to be competitive. They're not gonna ask you who wins, you don't decide. I don't see 70 million Americans shifting to anyone else at this stage.

agamemnonymous , (edited )
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Is it a paradox to say that driving in circles around a roundabout is pointless because it doesn't get you anywhere, but driving along the route to a destination does? Driving is driving, does it work or not? Paradox! Smearing food on your belly doesn't satisfy your hunger, but eating it does. Does food satisfy hunger or not? Paradox!

If we had approval or ranked choice voting, voting third party would accomplish something. Since we have First Past the Past elections, voting third party is as effective as smearing food on your belly or circling a roundabout for hours.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I'm not promoting it either, that doesn't change the fact that it is what we use. Voting for a candidate that supports RCV doesn't basically mean that the election you voted for them in becomes retroactively RCV, you act based on what the system is, not what it should be.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

That's not how the system works. All voting third party does is equivocate approval for the two front runners. Do you approve of the insurrectionist fascist and the neo-liberal equally? Are they exactly the same to you? Do you think they are equally supportive of election reform?

The fascists with minority support only have power because kids who don't understand the electoral system either abstain from voting, or vote third party. If everyone held their nose and showed up to vote lesser evil, the Republican party would wither away into being a third party themselves and a progressive party could actually gain footing.

Your candidate doesn't stand a chance precisely because people like you keep pretending the system works differently.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Hows that goin for ya?

Pretty well actually, considering the glacial pace inherent to changing a political landscape. It's made it onto the ballot in several states, and is used several local and state-wide elections here and there. The Fair Representation Act has been brought to th the floor in 2017, 2019, 2021, and again this year but it hasn't been voted on yet.

How about if everyone just voted for the candidate that supports ranked choice?

How's that going for ya? Elected a third party candidate to the presidency yet?

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

The Fair Representation Act has been sponsored by a Democrat every time.

It's orders of magnitude more probable to get the slim minority you're talking about to align D than it is to get the overwhelming majority I'm talking about to rally behind the same third party candidate. It's not even worth comparing, the concept is laughable at best. To even hint at that happening this election is bordering on clinical levels of delusion.

If you want to campaign for your candidate next cycle, be my guest. Start early, organize, fundraise and get the message out. Next cycle. This cycle, you're dividing the anti-Project-2025 voting bloc. This cycle, you run the very real risk of ensuring there is no next cycle. Remember that.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Look, some people just can't digest it. As you get older, your ability to process mac'n'cheese without dire intestinal consequences drops off substantially. The pros just simply aren't worth the cons, not by a long shot.

Doesn't stop me tho

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Lactose

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

There are varieties of mac'n'cheese other than Kraft

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Note "Doesn't stop me tho"

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

We are not at war. There is no enemy. This is a rescue operation.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I repeat, this is a rescue operation. Those on the right don't need to be defeated, they need to be saved. There is no "us" and "them", only subsets of "us" who are hurt and confused. "War" and "enemy" are the language of the hurt and confused.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

If she has the same lack of choice, she should absolutely choose the lesser evil for now and do what she can to rectify the situation after. She can bide her time with the "nice guy" while devising a plan of escape. If she gets stuck with the the abuser, she very well may not survive long enough to make the attempt.

You're right, it doesn't differ from what we should do: mitigate damage now to buy time to develop more meaningful solutions.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Good on you, it's never too late to learn.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Her is set in 2025

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I know this is a point of some contention among the deaf community, but how do you feel about the development of a "standard" international sign? Personally, and I'm speaking as a fully hearing person, I think a basic international sign should be developed and taught to everyone. Not only to facilitate communication with the hard of hearing, but also in loud environments and with those who don't share a spoken language.

It's my understanding that a large portion of the deaf community is hostile to the idea of a universal sign from a cultural perspective, since each regional sign has cultural content. However I think it's a potential solution for numerous issues, with more pros than cons.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

It would certainly be limited and rudimentary; I wouldn't suggest a solution exists capable of any broad nuance. But gesture is a unique variety of communication, in that it can convey "innate" meaning in ways verbal language simply cannot, except in the case of onomatopoeia. Pointing is nearly universal, smiling is nearly universal, beckoning is nearly universal. Gesture is a spatial form of communication, centered around our primary means of material interaction with the world.

Grammar and syntax aside, I'd argue that it would be possible to assemble a vocabulary of universal concepts (eat, drink, sleep, travel, me, you, communicate, cooperate, come here, go away, etc). Certainly not a language for extended detailed conversation, but a codification and extension of gestures which are already nearly universal by virtue of their innate implications alone. Enough to communicate that you're hungry, but not enough to send for takeout.

A universal language, at the level of any other sophisticated language, is obviously impossible. A formal codification of simple gestures to communicate at the most basic human concepts is much more doable.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I am familiar with the regionality of language. I don't understand your point, you're simultaneously saying that you can't have universal understanding, but we have gestures we instantly understand instantly so there's no need to codify them, but they look different.

I think you're wildly overestimating the scope of my proposal.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

My goalposts are in precisely the place they started: a collection of basic international gestures to facilitate the most basic communication. Where are you jumping to colonization? Where did I say that my cultural group gets to decide what the signs are? You're, again, wildly overestimating the scope of my proposal and jumping to ridiculous, unsubstantiated conclusions.

You get a group of signers from around the world to develop an international pidgin (like they already do informally at international gatherings) and come to consensus based on commonality. When the majority agree on a sign, use it. Where there's little agreement, choose a new sign. No finger spelling, no complex abstract concepts, just a formalization of gestures most people could probably figure out anyway. I fail to see how that perpetuates colonization unless that's what you're setting out to do with your methodology.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

"It would be nice to develop an auxiliary sign language to bridge the accessibility gap between the hard of hearing and those who don't learn a dedicated sign"

"You're just as bad as the colonizers that decimated native American cultures"

Get out of here with that bad faith savior complex nonsense. Teaching indigenous people English wasn't the problem, the problem was beating children for using their native language. I guess you think literacy is racist too because literacy requirements were used to disenfranchise black Americans, huh?

Your sanctimonious colonization comments are dripping with irony. I asked a question, directly to another person, about their opinion of the concept as a deaf/hard of hearing person. You interceded uninvited, deliberately ignored the explicitly stated context of the question (gestural languages having unique properties from verbal ones) so you could shoehorn in your opinion about a topic explicitly excluded by that context, which you smugly assumed I wasn't familiar with, purporting the relevance by referencing authors who wrote very little about the actual topic at hand.

You want to talk about colonizers, look at your own actions here.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

a JoJo's Bizarre Adventure version of Jesus

A? Is there more than one?

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

"Beauty", "opinion", "free will", "try". These are vague, internal concepts. How do you distinguish between a person who really understands beauty, and someone who has enough experience with things they've been told are beautiful to approximate? How do you distinguish between someone with no concept of beauty, and someone who sees beauty in drastically different things than you? How do you distinguish between the deviations from photorealism due to imprecise technique, and deviations due to intentional stylistic impressionism?

What does a human child draw? Just a rosebush, poorly at that. Does that mean humans have no artistic potential? AI is still in relative infancy, the artistic stage of imitation and technique refinement. We are only just beginning to see the first glimmers of multi-modal AI, recursive models that can talk to themselves and pass information between different internal perspectives. Some would argue that internal dialogue is precisely the mechanism that makes human thought so sophisticated. What makes you think that AI won't quickly develop similar sophistication as the models are further developed?

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

An AI doesn't understand. It has an internal model which produces outputs, based on the training data it received and a prompt. That's a different cathegory than "understanding".

Is it? That's precisely how I'd describe human understanding. How is our internal model, trained on our experiences, which generates responses to input, fundamentally different from an LLM transformer model? At best we're multi-modal, with overlapping models which we move information between to consider multiple perspectives.

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

Philosophical masturbation

I couldn't have put it better myself. You've said lots of philosophical words without actually addressing any of my questions:

How do you distinguish between a person who really understands beauty, and someone who has enough experience with things they've been told are beautiful to approximate?

How do you distinguish between someone with no concept of beauty, and someone who sees beauty in drastically different things than you?

How do you distinguish between the deviations from photorealism due to imprecise technique, and deviations due to intentional stylistic impressionism?

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

What evidence do you have that human cognition is functionally different? I won't argue that humans are more sophisticated for sure. But what justification do you have to claim that humans aren't just very, very good at making guesses based on previous training data?

agamemnonymous ,
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works avatar

I'm sorry that you're struggling. Perhaps if you answered any of the questions I posed (twice) in order to frame the topic in a concrete way, we could have a more productive conversation that might provide elucidation for one, or both, of us. I fail to see how continuing to ignore those core questions, and instead focusing on questions that weren't asked, will help either one of us.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •