…You’re really saying that one party where you have no functional choice is better than a multi-party system, just because you think that Republicans and Dems are too alike, while ignoriing the plethora of other parties that not only actually exist in the US, but hold office at local and state level?
While it is true that there was inexpensive housing available in the USSR, and that rents were quite reasonable compared to anything that currently exists in the US, and people couldn’t readily be evicted if they lacked the ability to pay, it’s a flat-out lie to say that that was the “solution” to homelessness, or that it eliminated the problem. Rather, the USSR criminalized being homeless and not being engaged in socially-productive labor; people that were homeless ended up in prisons and were labelled as parasites. The problem that we have now is that the official records simply didn’t record the problem, in much the same way that Stalin had histories and photos revised to eliminate people that had become enemies of the state.
The problem with China being that it’s authoritarian, not that it’s capitalist or communist. There’s no choice other than the Communist Party, so when the party is wildly corrupt, you have no recourse at all short of revolution. And we all know what China does to counter-revolutionaries.
I’d argue that the problem isn’t so much saying that you’re a vegan because X, Y, Z, but that very often vegans extend that to moral judgements about people that aren’t vegan, without accepting that there are reasons someone may not wish to be a vegan. Y’know, god forbid that you tell a vegan that you hunt your own meat, and only kill/eat invasive species that are disrupting the ecosystem, like feral pigs, or lionfish in the Gulf of Mexico.
“Lemming” is used to refer to people that use Lemmy (lemmy.world, lemm.ee, etc.). Give that you have to have an account to post, you are def. a lemming.
I was raised Mormon. Mormonism is somewhat unique in that it claims to have a modern prophet and leadership that are directly led by god, and it strongly encourages members to pray to god and ask god for confirmation that this is true. Mormons are also taught that god would not allow their prophet to lead them astray, and that your local leaders are also inspired by god in what they do in their official capacity.
I was a missionary when shit started to break. I had a nervous breakdown; I am on the autism spectrum (although that diagnosis wasn’t available at that time; it was almost 30 years ago, back in DSM-III), and being a missionary was a lot too much for me for many, many reasons. I became suicidal. My leaders–again, people who were supposed to be called by god and led through inspiration from god–insisted that I must be acting in some sinful way, and that it was sin that had led to me being suicidal. They encouraged me to read my scriptures and pray more–as if I wasn’t already doing that a lot as a missionary–and to repent of my sins (whatever they were, because I sure as fuck didn’t know). If I was not sinning in some way, then Satan never could have taken hold in my heart, and Satan was obviously what was causing me to be suicidal. Obviously these commandments did not help, because I wasn’t doing anything ‘wrong’ in the first place.
But that leads to a problem: I believed that these people were called by god, and acting under god’s instructions, because I had received a spiritual witness. However, it was clear that they were wrong; I was not acting in a sinful manner (certainly less so than other missionaries!), and I had nothing to repent of. So these things are clearly contradictory: if I have received a spiritual confirmation from god that these men are led by him, then what they are saying must be from god and therefore true. But I know my own actions, and I know that I haven’t done anything that is sinful under any remotely normal definition of sin. Therefore, the feelings that I believed were spiritual confirmation must not have been spiritual confirmation at all.
Once you realize that feelings can not be a reliable way of knowing if something is actually true or not (or True, for that matter), then all of it falls apart. You realize that ‘answers’ to prayers are just feelings, not communication from the divine. The bible is suddenly a book of myths. Miracles dissolve like fog in the sun. When you look at religion–not just Mormonism, but all religion, and you compare it against things that can be verified empirically, none of the claims stand up.
Even though the foundations of my faith cracked while I was a missionary, I was unable to accept the meaning for several years, because Mormonism is a cult, and it’s very hard to escape even when you know it’s garbage.
FWIW, I am very much a leftist. I’m mostly an anarchist, although I also recognize that having a large, diverse, functioning society is extremely difficult–bordering on impossible–without some degree of authoritarian control. (And I’ve also seen just how paralyzed radically democratic groups can get, when they have to vote on everything.) I want the people on the left, the people that want a more equal society, to do better, because I think we can be better.
Being kind to people–not fake kindness, not kindness with an agenda, but just kind–can go a long ways for leftists. For women, well, I’m not a woman. But having women as friends and them being open with me about what they experienced as women went a long way towards opening my eyes.
And, FWIW, I started from a position of being deeply conservative, very religious, and having absolutist views on gender identity and gender roles, and the godly nature of capitalism.
I’ve absolutely, definitely met people IRL that have argued in exactly the way I outline. …Although “argue” is charitable, since they’re just haranguing their victim subject. I’ve also known plenty of people that claim that they know they aren’t going to change the mind of the person they’re verbally assaulting–because people can’t change, I guess?–but that they want to win the hearts of the people observing. …Which they also aren’t doing, since they’re appearing to be mean-spirited to observers. (And yes, there’s nuance here, and I still firmly believe in punching Nazis.)
David McRaney has been talking for a while about what actually works for changing the way people think and believe (and he just recently published, “How Minds Change”), and Anthony Magnabosco has been posting street epistemology videos on YouTube for years. Both of them have found–to be really reductive–that you need to emotionally connect with the person you’re talking to, and you need to ask open-ended questions that allow them to consider the foundations for their beliefs.
And to your point, yes, that’s hard to do online. I get it. I often fall into the trap of arguing instead of being empathetic. So I need to take my own advice.
There’s actually some useful information here if you ignore the hyperbole.
If you act like a jerk and are mean to people, you will drive people away from your causes, even if you are taking a position that is strongly defensible from a moral and ethical view. If you take the view that “I don’t have to do the emotional labor to educate you, OMG read some theory, you’re fucking stupid if you can’t understand this, you don’t deserve to live if you think Y,” etc. you aren’t going to win people over. And yes, if you are always acting like an asshole, you’re probably going to drive people away that believe similarly to you, because they won’t want to be associated with assholes. That’s human nature, and something that you need to learn to contend with if you want to win adherents to any political or social position.
In other words: leftists and feminists, fucking get over yourselves.. You may not want to put in the emotional labor because it’s exhausting, but you know who will? Fascists, nationalists, misogynists, and religious fundamentalists. If you just want to make fun of and vent at people on the right, you’re only creating a more insular group that more and more people are going to end up hating. See also: hexbear,
I don’t think that the issue is that people don’t know; people don’t care. They don’t understand how horrible the loss of privacy is, and think that the marginal convenience of being able to control your thermostat from your workplace, or have your refrigerator add milk to your shopping list outweighs the negatives of them being turned into botnets, or monetizing all of your data to squeeze every last penny out of you.
No, that’s a core belief of Buddhism. You move up or down as you achieve–or lose–enlightenment, and once you’ve extinguished all desire, you achieve enlightenment and nirvana. Hindu might also have beliefs in reincarnation, but IDK.
Huh? No, of course you can’t, because you’d first have to be able to prove that any person in question had lived a previous life, and that kind of belief isn’t falsifiable.
If the whole thing could be proven or disproven, then it would be science and not religion.
I was being serious. She made art history–which is normally a fairly dry subject, particularly when you’re covering art before 1100CE–a really fun and engaging subject.
I had an art history professor that insisted on being called doctor; she said she’d put in a lot of time and spent a lot of money to get that degree, and so she wanted to get her money’s worth.
No; adjunct faculty can also rightly be called professor without having achieved a doctorate. I’ve had a few professors that had BAs and MFAs (esp. since I’m not sure that there are PhD programs for fine arts).
…And yet, the Enterprise is armed. If power does not come from the ability to effectively use violence, but from some other means, then why would the Federation arm it’s flagship?
Aside from an episode of Strange New Worlds (and possible in Wrath of Khan, depending on your perspective), space pirates aren’t brought up as a risk to the Federation starships, presumably because they usually aren’t. Shields alone should be sufficient for debris and asteroids, since shields appear to stop physical objects as well as certain forms of energy (obvs. not certain bands of light though, or whatever bands their sensors use). Non- and quasi-sentient species shouldn’t pose any risk to a starship at all (aside from possibly omniscient comets, thank you Stanislaw Lem). The weapons on a starship are appropriate to direct against planetary settlements, bases, and other starships.
Fundamentally, I believe Mao was correct on this; the ability to use violence effectively is the lowest common denominator for all power. Everything else is a veneer of civility intended to disguise the violence that is inherent to all forms of coercive rule.
This depends on how cold, and how physical the labor is. The more physical the labor is, the less you’re going to want to wear (in general), because movement and exercise is going to keep you warm.
But, here’s a basic guideline.
First, no cotton. Full stop. Cotton will absorb mater, and then loses it’s ability to keep you warm. Jeans are an absolute non-starter in really cold weather. Leather is okay, but absolutely must be oiled and sealed against water (I’ve been experimenting with a beeswax and neatsfoot oil combination that seems to penetrate pretty well when applied with heat, but that’s more work than most people want to do).
Second, layers. Generally speaking, you want a wicking layer right next to your skin, insulation layer(s), and a waterproof/windproof shell layer over everything. Polypropylene long underwear is the normal technical choice for a wicking layer, and you can get polypro sock liners and glove liners as well. Wool should be your go-to choice for insulation layers; it has the fairly unique property of keeping you warm even when it gets wet, particularly because it’s really hard to get wool ‘wet’ (because wool is hydrophobic). Gore-Tex is gold-standard shell material; it gives you some level of breathability (e.g., allows sweat to evaporate out) while preventing water from getting in and keeping the wind out. With a good shell, you should be able to open vents to cool yourself down if you get too warm (and definitely cool yourself down well before you start feeling sweaty!) Goose down is great at keeping you warm, but does lose it’s loft–and insulating properties–when it gets wet. Depending on what you’re doing, you may want abrasion-resistant panels on your shell layers, as Gore-Tex isn’t as durable as, e.g. 1000D nylon pack cloth.
For boots, the US military ‘Mickey Mouse’ boots are pretty great. They’re several layers of rubber sheet, with wool felt insulation. You want to get them sized up a little so that you can get a liner sock and full cushion wool hiking socks in. All leather ankle-height hiking boots (Sorrel used to be one of the top choices, I’m not so sure any more) with lots of oil/wax based sealants and gaiters is another good choice.
As far as hands go, the same basic principles apply; a lightweight liner, a heavier insulation, and a shell layer. Generally speaking, you want mittens rather than gloves. If you must have gloves, then shooting gloves or lobster claw gloves are better than gloves that separate all of the fingers.
You’ll also want a good scarf–again, wool–and a long hat or balaclava, covered by the hood of your shell layer. The downside to a balaclava over a hat is that if it’s cold enough, your breath will freeze in the balaclava, leaving you with icicles hanging on your face.
This is what I’ve worn when I’ve done multi-day camping trips in the mountains in -20F weather. I’ve made mistakes–like choosing boots with different insulation, which kept my feet wet for three days straight–and the mistakes were painful. Poor footwear choices when bicycling at -20F has meant that I’ve had frostbite in my feet–not severe, thankfully, but incredibly painful as they thawed out.
EDIT As a final note - avoid anything that’s really constricting. Your wicking layer should be against your skin, but not tight. Anything that restrict blood flow is going to be a risk to developing frostbite. Shoes that are comfortable without heavy socks are going to be too tight with them. Depending on what you’re doing, you may need to make compromises. For instance, if you’re doing roofing, you’re probably going to have to get cotton, because that’s what Carhartt is available in, and you probably don’t want to be wearing $500 Gore-Tex shell pants for that.
The fact that there are anti-BDS laws doesn’t make this not a conspiracy. Moreover, anti-BDS laws haven’t yet been tested in courts; given that groups like the ACLU oppose them as infringing on legitimate political speech, I think that there’s solid reason to say that they’re unconstitutional. Esp. since BDS is intended to target the country, and not the people.
The conspiracy theory behind this is that Jews control everything, and that’s why anti-BDS laws exist. Jewish media overlords don’t like mean things being said about Israel, so they pull the strings on their puppet politicians, and make them dance.
The reality is a couple of things. First, Israel is an ally of the US, and politicians have burned a lot of political capital propping the country up for the last 60-odd years. There’s a bit of a sunk-cost fallacy there; we need to keep supporting Israel, rather than finding new and less-sucky friends in the middle east (like, I dunno, maybe apologizing to Iraq for fucking their whole country over with the shah?, not that they’re great, but we def. made that particular pile of shit). The other one is that evangelical Christians need to support Israel, because they believe that Jesus is going to return as the Messiah in Jerusalem, to the Jews. Anything that can potentially threaten the possibility of Israel controlling Jerusalem would undercut their religious beliefs, so they really want to dump money into Israel. (No, that’s not a bad joke, or conspiracy theory itself; I can probably find links to sermons of guys like Greg Locke saying as much; they don’t like Jews, since Jews are Christ-killers, but they need Jews to usher in the apocalypse. AFAIK, this is pretty mainstream evangelical stuff.) Evangelicals have a lot of power in this country, even if they’re not that large of a population any more. Republicans are largely controlled by them, which is part of the reason that you won’t see any republicans opposing aid to Israel.
Anyway, BDS would threaten the support for Israel; therefore, anti-BDS is generally favored by Dems, and completely supported by Republicans.
Communist Filth/Capitalist Filth (lemmy.ml)
*Crickets* (lemmy.zip)
Former religious lemmings, what made you quit religion or stop being a believer?
Mostly trying to relate.
I used to think X (sopuli.xyz)
‘People have no idea’: How smart devices spy on us and reveal information about our homes (english.elpais.com)
Free sex... (party)*… Become poor dog (lemmy.world)
Pronouns. (mander.xyz)
historical materialism moment (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
cross-posted from: lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/7802418...
Those of you who work 8+ hours outside in the cold regularly, how do you dress for the job?
What tricks do you have to keep warm?
Seeing people realize they cant openly criticize a certain group committing genocide or they may lose their jobs (lemmy.ml)
if youre am*rican its illegal to boycott them.