Aw, why the downvotes? I thought it was funny.
Oh yeah, I guess those can also do that.
Lemmygrad: claims to be anti-imperialist Also Lemmygrad: supports Russian invasion of Ukraine
Hmmmmm...
Eh, I dunno that I'd actually characterize him as a liberal so much as him being an authoritarian that just pushed whatever happened to serve him at any point. Kinda in the same vein of fascists not having any economic ideology, just whatever serves their ideal of the state at any given moment. So yeah, I certainly agree with your sentiment that Stalin certainly was not a communist, but more because he only cared about gaining/maintaining power rather than actually subscribing to any economic theory.
No, it's really not the same thing. You can legislate better schools with a variety of methods, the main point being that you're regulating government jobs(to oversimplify). You're more limited to negative legislation for parents, such as punishing child abuse. I guess you could technically legislate certain mandates for parents to be better parents, but like, good luck passing said legislation. And even if you do(and this is the big boi), how the fuck do you enforce that??? And on top of even that, how can you be sure parents will be qualified/able to teach their kids such a wide variety of skills? You can fire teachers for incompetence and publicly investigate school districts for failing to faithfully implement good practice. And it should also be mentioned that shifting these expectations (especially via legislation) onto parents will disproportionately burden the poor who will be less likely to have the time, skills, or knowledge to teach said things.
Man, I wholeheartedly agree with the premise that Rome just simply had the capacity to lose. I think it may even be the largest contributing factor to the long decline of the empire. Kinda hard to maintain that capacity when it's all being spent on plagues and civil wars.
As a man who loves Roman history a bit too much who is also very much so a leftist, it's aggravating trying to get into discussions or communities about Rome without things taking a fashy turn at some point. It's almost like being a Star Wars fan... sigh.
But yeah, great to see this take affirmed here.
I'm struggling with answering this question. I mean, obviously, I don't know. I could give an opinion on what I think is most likely to happen, but what does it matter? Like, legitimately, what does it matter? And I do mean it earnestly, what would it matter even if I just so happened to be right about my speculation?
We all certainly hope that 2025 will be better. But I think the important thing to remember is that 2025 being better is possible. In fact, I used to be a homophobic ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christian bigot. In my remorse over the person I used to be, I noticed I felt shame rather than self-righteousness over my condemnation of people just being who they are. In my longing to undo the evil I committed in the past, I realized I have the opportunity to fight for good, even if it means fighting what feels like my own reflection. I got better. I still have a ways to go and even more internalized prejudice I need to demolish, but at least I know getting better is possible, because I did it before goddammit. And if a dickhead like me can be better, can't we all?
And even if things just turn to absolute shit, I know I can at least make my tiny corner of the world a little bit brighter if I can make myself better. And you know what? I think it's good enough for me to know that I can start doing something about that right now. Afterall, as Marcus Aurelius would say to himself; It is up to you!
Ooo man, this is a super underrated take. Too often people get caught up in what the law is trying to do, how people could get around it, and what the incentives/disincentives are, while not really taking into consideration how the law would actually operate. Sometimes people get all conspiratorial about it trying to point to ulterior motives, but man, most of the time it's more that bad-faith actors are taking advantage of what's already out there rather than actively creating the problems they want to create.
My wife is gonna appreciate the meme, but yeah, she's gonna roll her eyes about who the song is attributed to... all the more reason to send it.
Civilization III Final Fantasy IX Valheim Kerbal Space Program Stellaris Empire Earth Borderlands 2 Morrowind Halo: Reach Rimworld
The must be mentioned: KOTOR Bioshock(and Infinite) Final Fantasy 4, 14, 5, 6 in that order AOE 2 Red Alert 2 Total War: Rome, Rome 2, Medieval 2, and Shogun Lords of the Realm 2 No Man's Sky Horizon series Space Empires V Battlefield 1942 Medal of Honor(the first one from the 90's, not that bullshit reboot from 2010) Smash Bros Melee, 64, Brawl in that order Crysis Warcraft II: The Tides of Darkness Theme Hospital MDK2 Chrono Trigger
It was tough leaving some of those mentioned ones out of the top ten, but the top ten belong where they are for me for how definining they were/are for me.
I feel like you missed the point at the detriment of people taking your position seriously. Words and their definitions are very important in communication and I feel like semantics is something that is very undeserving of the flippant treatment it routinely receives.
If someone were to accuse someone else of lying, this also comes with an accusation of intent. It isn't sufficient for someone's statement to be false to be a lie, there also needs to be intent to deceive. Intent to deceive implies that the liar at least knows what they're saying is untrue, and possibly implies they know what is actually true depending on the context. However, if there is no intent to deceive, it's usually a case of that person just being mistaken. How frustrating would it be for someone to be accused of lying when they say something they believe to be true? And how seriously should they take their accusers when not only being told their view of reality is incorrect, but also being informed that their own intent is malignant when stating something they believe is true?
So, when it comes to describing something as a genocide, you're also describing intent. If you tell people that they're killing animals with the intent to extinct them, they're probably not going to take you seriously. It's probably better to have someone tell you what their intentions are rather than just assuming you can slap a piece of paper saying "this is you" on a scarecrow before drop-kicking it.
Bro, what? Lots of shit in this is straight up untrue. Lots of y'all already pointed out some internal in inconsistencies, but there are some fundamental claims that are just incorrect, such as ADHD having to do with the inability to focus, rather than the inability to regulate attention, which is a very important distinction. ADHD is primarily a disorder of regulation. Also, I will loudly echo what someone else also pointed out: no, you do not "overcome" ADHD. There is no cure as it is a neurodevelopmental disorder. You have the brain you have. While it's true that some number of people "grow out of" ADHD as they become an adult, many in the academic field think a good amount of those may just have come up with better coping mechanisms or are high-functioning in some other capacity.
Also, missing in the infographic are the two most helpful treatment options for anyone with ADHD: psychostimulants and consistent exercise. Stimulants are very effective for treating ADHD and actually have a lower risk for abuse compared to those without ADHD. Consistent exercise has also shown to be very reliable in reducing symptom severity, although some more studies are needed on long term effects(like, years/decades). Routines are great for people with ADHD and all, but are extremely vulnerable to discontinuation upon any disruption.
On top of that, a great injustice done by focusing(heh) on whether or not someone with ADHD is paying attention and drawing it up to an inability to do so, rather than an inability to regulate attention, is that it ignores all the other well documented areas of difficulty in regulation. Emotional volatility, sleep irregularity, inconsistent social interaction, variable cognitive recall, and especially executive dysfunction are all major parts of ADHD that strongly earn the criteria to warrant the title 'Disorder', as these are things that will certainly disrupt someone's life while they occur on a daily basis. If someone with ADHD is having difficulty completing a task due to their sudden inability to regulate their executive functions, well golly, don't they look like "they're just lazy" or "they just don't want it bad enough" or "they're not even trying" or "they just need to quit fucking around and do it" or any other unhelpful and inaccurate cliche, when in reality, they're struggling mightily to turn their intent into action because of their ADHD. Funny that the disorder is named after the two most prominent observations that someone without the disorder would be inconvenienced by.
Exactly. It's absurd to say the designers of any system absolutely intended any and all outcomes of said system, in the same way It's absurd to attribute someone's intent as whatever you deem to be the outcome. To kind of bring it all around, it's absurd to say the designers of our overall system legitimately intended all the flaws that came with it. In fact, with things like the [American] Healthcare system, it wasn't really "designed" so much as it kinda happened. The heuristic to think of the system as working as intended is a great way to analyze it and all, but it's still important to keep in mind that the illuminati wasn't up there wringing their hands and cackling about how much suffering the barbaric American Healthcare System would cause.
I'm not sure why you got down-voted for this as I think you illustrate the intent of the above-mentioned heuristic quite well. The intent of the heuristic isn't to objectively define what the purpose of a system is(because, well... lol), but to change the framing of it in order to better understand it's function and how well it serves it's "purpose". People who design and implement these systems tend to become married to the idea of that system just needing a tweak here and there to finally serve it's purpose 100%, usually without considering that the system may already be working optimally.
The reason I think your example of the Healthcare System(in America to be specific) is a great example is that those who are served by said system see it's flaws first-hand versus those who design and maintain it. To the individual(s) on the receiving end, the purpose of the system is effectively something completely different than the original purpose given. To then apply the framing that the purpose of the Healthcare system is to add stress, bankrupt the sick, skyrocket costs, make people die from neglect, etc, we then see the system not as a flawed one that just needs a few tweaks, but as fundamentally missing the mark before it's epistemological foundation is even laid. We're able to get the engineers see what the maintenance crew sees, so to speak.
What the heuristic doesn't do is objectively establish the purpose of a system. That's silly, as purpose is necessarily subjective. I think our boy was trying to find a way of not only better analyzing a system, but to also help the designers of those systems see it from the perspective of those on the receiving end. What better way than to think of a system as working exactly as intended?
As for me, I think we tend to subconsciously project our intent into the world, effectively turning our framing of things we do/create as objectively inheriting the purpose we had in mind, regardless of the outcome. This can really muddy the waters with what we mean when we discuss something like purpose, which I suspect is the source of apparent confusion within this particular thread. Purpose being subjective, it will change from person to person, and purpose being subjective, it's a poor indicator of how a system functions.
Oh shit! Independent Fundamental Baptist! I had to deal with living with that shit, too. At the end of the day, if the king james bible was good enough for Peter and Paul, it's good enough for me. Also, rock music is the devil.
As a preface, I absolutely agree that the parents here are very likely to be wrong in that it seems like they were ideologically opposed to their son's identity.
HOWEVER. I find it difficult to trust the validity and/or truth in the details given about this particular story as the article and title are both blatantly biased. On top of that, the claims made about the intentions and motivations of others are aggressively ignorant and just insanely unhelpful. You want people to double down on transphobia? Tell them they're a terrible person and they're only transphobic because _____. I get it, conservatives, Christians, etc should respect Trans people and their autonomy, but it's better for literally everyone to find the best way to reach these people in a way they'd actually be receptive to, rather than trashing and dehumanizing them as monsters. If they're conservatives, it shouldn't be surprising when they act like it. We should also recognize that they're people who are capable of learning to be better.
I used to be homophobic. I was a fairly conservative Christian back in the day and the justification came via biblical principles. I didn't learn to be better by being characterized as "he only hates gay people because he's secretly gay himself" or "he just wants to control what other people do in the bedroom", but rather by actually engaging my own rationalizations. I would have rejected the premise that I hated anyone who was homosexual, so any rhetoric that mirrors the dishonesty of this article would have been a non-starter. In fact, it would have seemed to me that there were no legitimate arguments to be made against my position, so I would have felt more justified with the given approach above. Being in a few opposing positions on the topic, I never believed that my concurrent position was morally wrong, even though I would strongly submit today that my position before as a conservative Christian absolutely was immoral and extremely uninformed. The takeaway I'm trying to emphasize is that going on the offensive for any such position is not only ridiculous, but very counterproductive.
While I understand the frustration with what this article appears to portray, the added dishonesty is harmful in that we're dehumanizing two parents who probably legitimately believe what they are doing is justified and moral. Attacking them would make them double down on their beliefs and who would directly suffer for it? Their son. So where I always found the blatant bias of articles or the always ridiculous non-argument "you just believe _____ because _____" inherently dishonest and icky, I think we should definitely take better stock of how we approach these topics for more than just the intellectual honesty, but also to recognize the second, third, and even fourth order effects our method of approach manifests. Outrage, especially about something moral, feels good, but what good is it when directed the way it is in this article? I could accuse them of being blind and only utilizing outrage as a clickbait tactic, and I have a chance of being correct, but I'm not arrogant enough to assert that I know for a fact what they believe and intend and post that on the internet.