thanks cde, 🫡

Ah yeah, thanks, I don’t actually know the details of the other pacts.

What really really gets me is when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is brought up, used to discredit and impart vileness on to the Soviet Union due to their association with Nazis (ignoring context, and other countries who made similar pacts earlier) and then the source of the awfulness, self-identifying (i.e. unambiguous) Nazis are pacified of negativity!

What? How do you use something to say something else is bad, then say that the something initially was actually not that bad! How does it not follow that the initial comparison and association at the very least be brought into question?

I didn’t know about him and ASD. Of course creating the environment in society at large (as opposed to small hidden spaces) for women, non-binary, gender diverse and other LGBTQ2SI+ folks is important.

I really don’t know what a decent method forward is that looks like in a way that in the interim doesn’t lead to issues like the surge of derision and cruelty towards trans folks in the UK. To me, this is evidently something that occurs towards neurodivergent or otherwise broadly defined individuals whom do not conform where gender is not the primary distinguishing factor (lingual, ethnic, etc.)

Yeah not seeing anything :/

I agree, and as well I think it’s relevant to consider what was historically considered invasive and omnipresent at that point in history is not necessarily the same as now.

I guess I’m thinking, like, are current governments similarly using the full extent of surveillance? And is it something knowable? As well, how’s the investment and expansion of that surveillance been done then and now?

I think I’m not understanding, would the Axis in this case have the same membership as in the past, or consist of a mix of old and new members?

Thanks for the info, I will say I did chuckle from OP’s response but this is infinitely more useful.

So am I :/ I pizza recently, I can’t justify ordering it again this soon…

Does it really play ball in the context of metaethics?

I’ll define morality and ethics as a normative system (operating on different levels of abstraction, with different targets as their focus, but maintaining the same kind of interaction) emergent from imperfect information transmission between any two points in space-time, i.e. the same body at t=n, t=m; or two different bodies at the same time (just to account for quantum stuff) which occur at level of complex life. I’ll say life is any system with the capacity to maintain or decrease entropy (Schrödinger is where I first saw this) for some period of time, and intelligent life meets some threshold for delay or non-direct determinants of information from outside the continuous body to manipulate its environment to a lower entropy state, one which does not as of yet have the same quality of decreasing or maintaining entropy as the intelligent lifeform does.

In this case, metaethics is a distinction in the realm of a type of interactions yet still a part of them. It’s like one pizza, you can cut it in half and say you have a left half and right each belonging to the meta and non-meta partitions. Or you can say that what we regularly refer to as morals or ethics is simply the toppings, metaethics is the dough which is frankly too frequently ignored in discussions of ethics and pizza-quality. The dough similarly provides the framework or support for the toppings, without which you would have a spread out cheesy and saucy salad (if veggies are a topping, otherwise you have what I make in the middle of the night when I don’t want the microwave to sound off to warm up food that would fill me up) which couldn’t be characterized as pizza.

Sorry I think I changed topic there, I hope some of the point comes across.

I’m probably in the Hume camp of skepticism and I like this meme :)

Solidarity friend 🤝

Ah crap, yeah forgot the follow up.

I don’t think this is true. The commonly cited reference is James Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 10, I’ll provide the relevant excerpt and a Wikipedia link, though I’ll urge caution as they aren’t authoritative sources by any means. Bolding is mine.

Preamble

Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in Federalist No. 9 and is titled “The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection”. The whole series is cited by scholars and jurists as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the meaning of the Constitution. Historians such as Charles A. Beard argue that No. 10 shows an explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of the principles of direct democracy and factionalism, and argue that Madison suggests that a representative republic is more effective against partisanship and factionalism.

Cherry-picked quote cited by Garry Wills

Garry Wills is a noted critic of Madison’s argument in Federalist No. 10. In his book Explaining America, he adopts the position of Robert Dahl in arguing that Madison’s framework does not necessarily enhance the protections of minorities or ensure the common good. Instead, Wills claims: “Minorities can make use of dispersed and staggered governmental machinery to clog, delay, slow down, hamper, and obstruct the majority. But these weapons for delay are given to the minority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character; and they can be used against the majority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character. What Madison prevents is not faction, but action. What he protects is not the common good but delay as such”.

EDIT: Here’s where I first heard of the argument that the US is not a democracy (in the sense it’s thought of by everyday use, as opposed to the Greek which involves the concept of demos. He’s a Marxist, thought it might be relevant and wouldn’t want to waste your time only to figure it out later.

EDIT EDIT: I didn’t even make my point, whoops. I think the founding fathers were not unaware of the current state of affairs of the electoral college being probsble, rather it was included by design.

It’s so strange, in that one post they’ll transfer the badness associated with Nazis → Soviets → Russians and then absolve the folks who were Nazi affiliated for an extensive period and even the Nazis themself.

It reminds me of math when you have a negative and non-negative multiply which makes the product negative, or the negative can be transferred to the multiplicant and the product remains the same.

-Nazi • Soviet = Bad Where Soviet is equal to Russian, then -Nazi • Russian = Bad Nazi • -Russia = Bad QED Russia is Bad

I have maybe 2 dozen and I haven’t played a single one. I downloaded titles a few times, forgot about it, then went on and bought the game on steam.

Could you give more specific examples? I don’t deny your experience, it’s a bit difficult to try and understand without additional context. Without it, I and other commenters are probably shooting in the dark. The explanations we give might be too general to be useful or satisfactory, or too specific wherein they miss the mark completely for you.

Yes please

Whatever I am I can’t get anything done, so it’s a moot point.

I have a strong inkling I’m an idiot, and a few around me have said the same. The only ones who have said otherwise are the kindest people I know, obviously I’m suspicious.

I wouldn’t have put it as crudely, but you captured the essence of what I was thinking.