• 0 Posts
  • 43 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle


  • I want to see a trial.

    I also want to start a go fund me for his or her legal defence find.

    I’d love to see a well funded law firm make the argument that the shooter acted in defence of self and others and drag all of UHC bullshit under a very large and uncomfortable deposition microscope to prove the CEO was responsible for letting people die.

    Maybe we could even start putting these health insurance CEOs on trial for all the wrongful deaths they’re causing without needing someone to take justice into their own hands first.





  • Most of them are hurting in one way or another. This particular round it’s mostly the financial, mental and emotional aftershocks of the pandemic amplified by greedy people coming up with new and inventive ways to take money from the poor and give it to the rich.

    But you need to first hear and understand their pain to have any hope of getting through to them.

    They’ve been told over and over through misinformation that immigrants, people with disabilities, loose/secular/independent women, people of different religious beliefs, skin colour, whatever else are the reason for their suffering, and that they should be afraid of them. That initial pain is channeled from fear to anger to hate to dehumanization to… “final solutions”.

    They want Trump in because they’ve been convinced that he’s powerful and “Trump will fix it.” ‘It’ being whatever the pain is.

    The reality is of course a much different story of basically just greedy people distracting them while they steal their lunch money, and narcissists that will do anything to gain ever more power.

    But if you want to unprogram someone from that you need to hear their pain. What was that thing that was used by the greedy and narcissistic to channel into hate.

    It’s mostly hurt/hurting people who are voting for Trump. To turn them around you need to hear their pain.



  • My mental image of the bicycle changed as each detail was added, but sometimes the detail changed the image (the handlebars were straight until you said they were dropped) and sometimes the detail didn’t exist; the dropped handlebars were wrapped in handlebar tape, but that tape didn’t have a colour (not sure how to explain that better) until you mentioned it was black. Most of the details “added” something to the scene rather than “changing” an assumed detail.

    The “front forks on the ground” question was particularly interesting to me.

    The bicycle started with two wheels, and front wheel just sorta disappeared from my image when you mentioned it was stolen, but the front fork remained floating in the air as if there was a wheel still supporting it. But asking the question about the forks on the ground made gravity exist, and then there had to be a reason it was floating, which became it was being held up by the U-Lock.

    I seem to imagine scenes with few superfluous details that mostly includes only what is mentioned or implied by the narrative. But it’s super interesting to me what details we’re in fact implied.

    The ball on the table was similar. The table was at waist height to the person, and the ball had a specific size of roughly the size of a racket ball because it had to be something that could be easily pushed. But the person pushing it was just a silhouette of a person, it had no gender, the only thing I pictured clearly was the hand that pushed the ball. It was pushed in an intentional way that made the ball roll across the table away from the “person” (as opposed to bouncing, or pushed sideways)

    The table was just an elevated plane it had no texture, or even legs supporting it, (probably because there was no ground for those legs to be on,) it didn’t go on forever, you could see the end of the table, but it also didn’t have a size.



  • It was a UPS I bought on Amazon.

    It arrived damaged in the box, almost certainly because the driver dropped it.

    My experience with Amazon customer service was umm… fun.

    1. click the request return button.

    This item is not returnable.

    1. call customer service

    Them: “This item is not returnable”

    Me “it arrived damaged”

    Them: “We’ll send you an email, reply to it with evidence of damage”

    1. reply to email sending pictures with close up of the damage

    Please send the email from the same address associated with the Amazon account

    1. resend reply from my other email

    The pictures you sent are in the wrong format please resend as jpeg or pdf

    1. convert the images and resend

    The pictures you sent do not show the entire product

    1. take new pictures from farther away

    Please send pictures that clearly show the damage

    😡



  • We call it the “Mens” category, but for all intents and purposes it is the same as an “open to all genders” category.

    Female athletes don’t compete in it because they’re physically not strong enough to even qualify to compete in it at the world level. The gender they identify as or were assigned at birth is irrelevant. There’s no genetic testing requirement to compete at the men’s level.

    In almost every sport, the world record performance from a women isn’t even good enough to meet the minimum bar for quality to compete in the men’s competitions at the world level.

    Even sports like diving where you’re judged more than measured, the male athletes strength makes it possible for them to do things the female athletes simply can’t.

    There was a time when they only was open to all competition, adding a protected women’s only category was to make it fair for women. And then we started calling the open category the men’s category.

    We could call it the open category and the low-T category instead, and it would have the exact same participants in each.








  • This is the trolley problem.

    The trolley problem is a series of thought experiments that should be morally equivalent. In all variations, the reader can choose to take an action that will directly result in the death of an innocent person who was otherwise ‘safe’, or do nothing and allow a larger group of people to die, and ask what is the morally correct choice.

    There’s no right answer to the trolley problem. The interesting take away is that what most people agree is the morally correct answer depends how the problem is framed.

    When the situation is framed as “you’re deciding between one person dying and many people dying” most people will agree the morally correct choice is the one where the fewest people die.

    But when the situation is framed as “are you justified in murdering an innocent person to save many” most people agree the morally correct answer is no.

    There’s even one variation where is is considered by most morally correct to murder one person to save many, if the person you’re murdering is responsible for putting the larger group in harms way in the first place.