Birds are not real

The only person who benefits from choosing to pursue truth than eat up propagandized unsourced theories is the self. I’ve taken some time to put pretty simple and evident, verifiable information right up there, if you wish to ignore it, you’re the only one affected by it, I win nothing else than the pleasure of sharing and explaining information that I think is representative of things as they exist in our world.

I have chosen the path of academic information such as books and papers to back up my beliefs, and not of oversimplified information with no source. Do you really believe that world politics and diplomatical relationships of the biggest superpowers layered on top of an information war that spans more than a century opposing the colonial post-colonial western states to the anti-colonial and anti-imperial global south can really be summed up to “It’s pretty obvious what has happened really”? It almost sound like satire when I read it again.

First, we do not know this, even the weather channel provides the odds of something happening alongside a reminder that future outcomes cannot be predicted with certainty. Second, they are fundamentally different:

American capitalism: Maximization of individual economic freedom and utility. The system is designed to facilitate capital accumulation, innovation, and consumer choice through decentralized decision-making. The individual (consumer, investor, entrepreneur) is the primary unit of analysis which in turn is often a source of criticism due to the individualist nature of the social doctrine. The “invisible arbitrator (state)” of the market is trusted to aggregate individual choices into the best possible social outcomes but as seen recently, this trust has no incentive and can be taken advantage of leading to internal corruption and instance of accumulation of powers. Process is paramount: free choice, free competition, and profit motive are both the means and the implicit ends. It was also a direct response by John Locke to the issues caused by mercantilism and was created in the 1689 if I remember correctly.

Chinese socialism: National rejuvenation and the perpetuation of the ruling party’s governance (let us remember that this is a country that is still less than 100 years old). Economic development is a critical tool for ensuring state sovereignty, social stability, and the legitimacy of the Peoples republic of China, which in turn is governed by a marxist-leninist influenced communist party. The economy is a subsystem of the state, not a separate sphere. It draws from Confucian traditions of a meritocratic, guiding state (similar to marx’s conclusion “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs” on the flaws of the 19th century german socialist democracy present in his last volume, Kritik Des Gothaer Programs). The collective (nation, party, society) is the primary unit of analysis. Economic growth is a means to power, stability, and civilizational restoration. The system is teleological oriented toward a specific end-state (a “modern socialist,” strong nation, correcting the post-modern false narrative that communism does not work which is a complete generalization and misdirected association on why certain states failed, yet cuba remains and has been for over a century even with the american embargo still being present). Efficiency matters, but only insofar as it serves the ultimate political goals.

The competition between them is not just economic so we can be clear; it is a competition between two fundamentally different logics of social organization: one rooted in individual autonomy and decentralized choice, the other in collective goals and centralized coordination. The 21st century will be a live test of their relative performance and resilience and I think of it as amazing that we get front row seats to see this.

Unless you can refute the below cited sources (which I doubt even I could despite teaching at the graduate and undergraduate level), I will assume you have just replied because of cognitive dissonance or lack of awareness of preconceived dogmas of how the dynamics of knowledge and linguistics work one with the other:

1-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_electricity

2-https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10728-012-0231-2

Fun fact, the disconnect between true academic knowledge discoveries which are bound to a very strict code of ethics, do not apply to the common working man. This creates paradoxes everywhere, especially at the fundamental level and english, being a language not regulated by a linguistic body like French is by the Académie Française. It becomes even more interesting when looking at very old languages that still are able to function like arabic which is 3000 years old and has morphed into common domestic tongues for the most part but is regulated by the Majma’ al-Lugha al-'Arabiyya as a theological unified language in Cairo and Chinese which is 1800 years old and regulated by the Guójiā Yǔyán Wénzì Gōngzuò Wěiyuánhuì (National language commission, or 国家语言文字工作委员会 ) and has had a modernist revision which gave us mandarin or “Simplified” chinese, building onto older “Traditional” Chinese.

Conflating 19th century shabbatist and zionist rhetoric with political science to hone a narrative meant to adress a hateful government will only rob away the validity of the rematriation of the occupied palestinan land.

I’ll support landback for any opressed people, but if I can agree on one point in your comment, adressing the holocaust with the creation of the israeli state was definitely the most effective and stupid way of creating a lot of hate that will someday come back to the jewish religious practitioners and harming them in the process. It’s not good, a lot of jewish people like Neturei Karta have made so much effort to correct the hate.

So is Dr norman finklestein, religious faiths should not be an excuse to genocidal support.

Haha, i agree, and thank you for the correction, my memory is not what it used to be, the montreal protocol did fix the ozone layer problem, the kyoto protocol adressed different issues, my error. Hopefully common sense will shift regarding the assumption that nuclear energy is bad, in my view, it is the only way to sustain humankind as we move past the recent start of the fifth industrial revolution. Humanists like Marx, Keynes and Rifkin seem to agree that the hopeful (and paradoxially very unlikely) sixth will be the death of work but I still have to see how things advance before I start believing into it.

China has shown a lot of promise thus far with their carbon reduction and development of small scale nuclear reactors, and hopefully someone will fix the fission theory someday. And concerning the simpler times, things are strange indeed in the future we live.

At times when we cannot understand the causality of a problem, it is better to acknowledge what we know, and more importantly, what we do not know rather than to create narratives from ignorance. I hope that my words will find you in a tone of compassion, not as an attempt to be classist or make you think that your grasp of reality is not valid.

Rest, and relax, math is not the issue here, the problem is ignorance. What you have just posted a tribalistic fallacy believing that things are simple, us vs them and the system being akin to big brother, this is a normal human behavior that some describe as Projective Identification. Nature is more complex than we think and so is a reality in which over 8 000 000 000 exist, and all pitch in to the pool of what the future will always carry back to us. Wether positive or negative.

I relate to your struggles and it often is so infuriating to see people on the bigoted end conflate mental health as an inherent characteristic of queer individuals blaming their queerness rather than to be able to see what alienation does to a brain. Wether it comes from sexism, homophobia or racism, it all is ignorant hate.

I also walked the path that leads to us corrupting our thinking and giving in to the pressure and hate to think that maybe it is better to rest eternally than to live and suffer.

Gay pride is proud because it fights the shame that we live in because of hate. And I am proud to still be alive and I am proud of hearing your victory in preserving your mental sovereignty. 🏳️‍🌈

Thank you for your reply. I’m new to Lemmy, and while replies like yours are why I’m still falling in love with it (since no platform has felt as representative of the human experience as Reddit before Helen Pao) it is a genuine pleasure to be met with careful intellectual consideration rather than misguided reductionism.

To address your point: yes, it is true that there are alternative ways to describe the practice of human abstraction of the natural realm, or “Science” which is a word that will be met by scrutiny under any ethics review for a university paper but works perfectly well in the common and fun daily discussions of any intellectually curious human.

Karl Popper is the one who perfected this for us, owing to the parallel contributions of two Jinns of knowledge who shook human and natural disciplines to their foundational assumptions: Einstein and Freud . Each published groundbreaking works using profoundly different methodologies. Popper, perhaps unintentionally—and arguably by mistake—brought this tension into sharp focus, setting in motion the philosophical move that ultimately negated Freud’s claim to scientific status and is now an (imo highly slanderous) general point of view that psychoanalysis has no merit and should therefore be discarded. By extension, this helped solidify a framework in which only certain forms of inquiry were deemed truly “scientific.” This, in turn, is why naturalistic physical abstraction and the echoes of scientism are now “painting the walls white” in every reflection of what we understand our world to be.

I was initially drawn into this because I am male and a lover of all scientific knowledge—knowledge acquired through hypothesis synthesis, verification via empirically and statistically supported evidence, and peer review. I also practice and teach at a Canadian university, though I’d prefer not to leave identifying details online. My husband (a brilliant art historian and big advocate member of the LGBTQ+ community and reform of logically outdated concepts such as race, gender, work and others), had the insight to engage me in a careful, sustained dialogue debating and reflecting on every facet of my materialist worldview. Through this, it became easier to understand why societal mental health is in its current state, and why humans seem (at least to my eyes) less self-aware than in prior eras. It had also a profound effect in allowing me to understand so much of myself and only got better as I became more and more nuanced in how I abstracted upon thoughts. But it also kept being a friction point on linguistics and academic nomenclature and yes, I do still believe that the abuse of language often made by calling academic disciplines “Science” is why “common sense” and popular points of views have done such a disservice to “human sciences” (despite them not using the scientific method).

This dialogue brought me to realize that the natural sciences are merely the tip of the iceberg, and that humanistic discourse plunges into far deeper waters. The journey has been mentally taxing, if I may share my lived experience, and I now feel a certain intellectual jealousy toward my husband’s discipline. I’ve come to believe that the humanities, scientism, and, by extension, the common abuse of language (such as treating “Science” as a monolithic entity) do a profound disservice to the second half of what it means to see the world as a human. Human and Natural sciences operate in a dichotomy after all and this is why the world can be interpreted as; There is everything outside of you, and then there is everything inside of you. The interior world remains a profound puzzle, one that still demands enormous focus. In my view, significant reforms in scientific methodology are urgently needed, especially as the dominant model has been a systemic impediment to disciplines like psychology and anthropology. And if I can pique your curiosity; below is a good paper on the issue if you happen to be tied to academic practice and if you are looking for a good challenge, natural sciences (in my eyes as I now get older and wiser) are total child’s play compared to how more robust and taxing humanities can be from a logical standpoint.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368879558_Hoskins_1_Emerson_in_the_Digital_Age_The_Transcendent_Potential_of_Human_Nature

China is actually a socialist democratic state, that is the political doctrine, their party was formed by marxists and communists but this applies to all current socialist states when looking at the origins of their governing bodies and the creation of those states. For the economic doctrine, they just really used their head and created a very well executed model that is relatively new in economy.

It’s usually called a social market economy and it uses the best traits capitalism can offer for growth and scale whilst containing it so it remains innovative and improves the economic situation of it’s citizens. It’s well secured to not allow internal corruption (see what happened when Jack Ma thought he was as polically powerful as US billionaires) and structures like state councils to approve or refuse mergers if they deem it attempts at building monopolies. Wether it will fail or not, all economic models have always had one thing in common; they are born, change through time, evolve and die eventually. That is their only common trait aside from their fundamental nature in being ideological systems to manage ressources. Capitalism may die within the next 100 years if the trends of what has happened in the last 20 years keep themselves up but yeah, it should not be dismissed because of the historical chinese/western frictions.

I personally would object to my boy being gay but also if my daughter was straight. I just don’t like the mental image of penises around my kids.

Vaginas are alright tho, they don’t enter you forcefully and lay eggs inside like some weird alien, not to be taken seriously tho since I’m also a queer man so yeah…

Wait, are we still all thinking he’ll peacefully leave the white house after the shit he pulled last time?

I think it’s useful to remember what happened to Francis Bacon after his father caught him wearing his mother’s underwear and had him whipped by a group of boys who worked on their land. He’s my favorite painter but that whole approach at manning someone up is just destructive.

You should raise a child to allow them to reach their full potential and accept their individual nature, making them fit a very specific indentical mold your pre-conceived ideals is a good way of destroying them.

Your point reminds me of the logic behind certain religious psychologies that see this world not as an end in itself, but as a proving ground or a purgatorial space. Its morality is sometimes inverted for a higher, otherworldly purpose.

Take public execution in medieval Christian Europe. While a spectacle of deterrence, some theologians (like Nicholas of Cusa aka who I picture rubbing my rod at night) grappled with a darker rationale: that the intense physical pain of burning could serve as a form of accelerated penance. The idea was that this suffering might pay the temporal debt of sin before death, potentially sparing the soul a longer, more severe punishment in the afterlife. The executioner, in this context, was performing an act of supposed spiritual charity, which is actually why executioners were often clergy or faith oriented men.

This mirrors,the core doctrine of Frankism, an 18th-century Jewish heretical movement. Frankists believed in ‘redemption through sin.’ Their goal was at times personal regret, but a cosmological acquisition of a higher knowledge. The pleasure or suffering of the sinner was incidental to this divine path to regret and penance.

We see a third variant in groups like ISIS. When they stoned Muslims for adultery, it was framed as enacting divine law to purify the community and offer the sinner ritual atonement. When they cut the throats of Western captives, the logic switched entirely to theater of terror, a spectacle for global distancing (stay in your country, as a result of the frequent invasions of countries from west asia), but also because in Islam, the act of cutting through the neck artery is seen as a quick and painless death. It causes death quickly because oxygen output runs out very fast and is why it is the mandatory way of making meat halal, part of it is to use a quick, simple and relatively painless death.

The unifying, and strangely rational, thread is this: when reality is viewed through an eschatological or cosmological lens, worldly concepts of pleasure, pain, and even morality become secondary. Acts are judged not by their immediate human cost, but by their function in a grand narrative of spiritual war, purification, or redemption. It’s a logic that operates on a plane completely separate from humanist rationale because humans are not the end all be all.

Couldn’t they also be a mathematician? The Pointcarré recurrence theorem is a good example of infinite rate in a fixed dimensional space. Also, that quote really oversimplifies environmental engineering, the ozone layer has been fixed by the kyoto convention because every person with the simplest understanding of the carbon cycle can understand why the earth has been able to sustain ressource consumption for all animals and can still do so for a very long time still, infinitely or not.

I advise you do and it may get a bit more difficult to follow but your comment is partly right yes. The only aspect of it that differs is that it is a form of acquiring knowledge, because knowledge of god means knowledge of the sins. Through sinning you acquire understanding of why sins are wrong and the more you sin, the more valid your faith is unlike the faith of someone who has never sinned and therefore has no innate understanding of why sinning is wrong. It is a very strange cult but it is the only one that explains logically why powerful entities choose to commit things like the ones epstein did and there is a lot of goddamn powerful maniacs that have been proven to be true frankist and believe the nonsense it is.

Is this why he supports the genocidal state of israel?

Electricity is not a real-concept, it is a qualitative aspect and the elec-root is what defines that aspect. There is no such thing as electricity, to cut it short, it’s like talking about “Science”. There is the scientific method, scientific advances, natural science which is a category of academic research, but science is a broad abuse of language, same thing goes for electricity when people picture “the blue stuff that flows in wires”, it’s reductive, ignorant and meaningless when you can talk about electrical arcs if you mean the “blue stuff”, electrical current, electrical charge, electrons if you refer to the subatomic particle allowing this exchange, electrical energy is the volts per coulombs, etc.

But there is current and in direct current, those particles flow as historically, that was the first convention for current, AC operates through frequency oscillation. Also, electromotive force is what causes the movement of electrons, the magnetic field is just a componenent and does not induce EMR and the energy generated by it is akin to mechanical “work” caused by kinetic forces. It boggles my mind how even modern electrical engineers sometimes get this wrong.

This is sadly irrelevant though to the investment world. Opportunities that present potential for market disruption are where money is made and yeah, AI looks like a gas engine rolling out from the Benz workshop when steam engines were the norm. What I do not understand though is scientists and ethical entities outlawed cloning in the early 2000s because of how dangerous it could become if an unknown virus got created whilst trying to clone an animal, yet we’re sitting here with our thumbs in our ass having data engineers play god with a technology that could wipe out humankind if found in the wrong hands.

I guess this is what a civil war is for isn’t it?