"Ugh, gross pizza!"
Does that imply that the issue is that you find pizza gross or does this statement only refer to this one specific slice because you don't like the specific topping on it?
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 1452
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 1452
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
What a lot of people also forget is that the french revolution resulted in an absolutist dictatorship. It took a few revolutions and centuries to get France into a somewhat democratic shape.
The issue here is that a revolution requires a strong leadership that is fast, decisive, and unquestioned. Good revolutionary leaders rarely make for good democratic leaders who voluntarily step aside to let the people choose another leader.
If the french revolution were to happen in the 21st century USA, it would be much more likely to be done by white supremacists or some other exteme radical group than by anyone non-radical, and chances are that the US would end up with a totalitarian regime afterwards that would make the orange clown and his gang look like school kids.
No, words have meaning and if you want people to understand, you need to use a word that directly conveys the meaning.
Fake news and alternative facts describe the same thing, but mean very different things to people.
Corporations have legions of marketing people to make sure that their words are used, so that e.g. if you read of a woman who sued Disney for an accident at one of their theme parks you'll read that she sued over a "wedgie", and not over a ripped utherus that required multiple surgeries and had the potential to cause permanent infertility. That's the power of using the right words.
So we certainly need the right words, and "explotation" is so much more direct, understandable and powerful that "EBITDA" or "profit").
The reason why "we matter" is stronger than "we matter too" is because it doesn't reference the other and thus is a purely one-sided thing, which can totally be read as "we matter more".
I'm not sure though if that's a good thing, depending on what's the goal.
Any minority movement always has to keep in mind that it's the majority that decides. Suffragettes did not take voting rights by force. They got voting rights because they managed to find enough allies in the male population that they were given voting rights.
Black slaves didn't end slavery themselves. They managed to find enough allies that would be willing to fight and die in a civil war to give them their freedom.
And a group consisting of roughly 12% of a country's population will not take the country by force and change laws by themselves.
"Black lives matter" is an incredibly polarizing statement that causes opposition (as evidenced e.g. by "Blue lives matter", which totally has the implied "more" attached). It's comparatively easy to say "No, the life of a black suspect does not matter more than the life of a police officer", if you already lean in that direction. It's a good slogan if you want to polarize and divide.
"Black lives matter too" is a statement that's really hard to disagree with, because of course black lives matter too, unless you are a hard-core white supremacist.
So if the goal is to get the majority on your side and actually cause change, I think "Black lives matter too" would have been the better slogan.
I am on the feminist side, firmly. But at the same time I think it's extremely necessary to update terminology.
The feminist side is really good at reckognizing the power of words and demanding that actually accurate wording is used... when they are on the receiving end of bad wording.
At the same time that side seems to be totally oblivious to bad wording when it affects their opponents.
Take for example "toxic masculinity". Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic. But that's not at all what the concept is about. It's about a misguided understanding of masculinity which is problematic. Why not just use "machismo", or maybe "toxic machismo"? Suddenly the word is not an attack against all men, but against a subset defined by specific behavior. Done.
Or "mansplaining". Woman can and do exhibit that behavior too. Just try being a young father and bring your toddler to a circle of older women. The correct word would be "overexplaining", and suddenly it clearly describes the problem without unnecessarily tieing it to a gender.
Fighting rhethoric like that is great if you want to get into a fight and make sure that you alienate the other, but it's utterly useless to further your cause.
Tbh, yes, everyone is unequal. Everyone has unequal talents and abilities, everyone has unequal chances and reducing this down only to the gender is deeply lacking in understanding.
And this leads to very weird situations like actresses complaining that it's discrimination if they only earn a hundred million for a movie because a male actor on the same movie earned two hundred million.
There's certainly specific gender unfairness, e.g. the distribution of chores and work, but in many cases there's far bigger discrimination along lines we really don't care about.
For example, a female capitalist earns as much as thousands or even millions of other women, and yet there's little tangible shitstorms against class devices compared to the shitstorms raging against gender divides.
So while feminism is certainly important, it sadly is often abused by the wealthy and governing classes to distract from the class conflict that is more and more of an issue.
To put it more pointedly: According to the German Wikipedia, the country with the best female to male gender pay ratio is Burundi. Because if nobody earns anything, everyone earns the same. And while the male and female peasants are fighting each other, the rich get to eat everyone's share.
Mostly because ancient calendars sucked and they constantly drifted out of alignment.
That issue originated in the ancient Roman Calendar, which is so old that we really don't know who invented it or when, but it's been likely some time around 700 BC.
So all in all, a 10 day error over 2700 years isn't all that bad.
Nah, I'm here in 2025.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
In some regions issuing false birth papers is very common due to legal reasons (tax and stuff).
That would be fun, making a genetic algorithm-based compiler.
Hole punch cards are an automated form of that. Punch the holes manually, feed the deck through an automated feeder.
It's a storage medium that you can write to by hand.
Bottom and sides look good, so it's just a top-layer problem.
To me that rules out inconsistent extrudion or a wrong steps-per-mm setting (which would cause under- or overextrusion), since all these things would be visible on the sides too.
The two first things I would check would be:
- Is infill off? You should have at least 5% infill, better 10-15%, otherwise you'll print in thin air causing issues just like that, with the edges looking ok and the closer you get to the middle getting worse.
- Is the fan on? Especially on PLA and fast print speeds the fan should be constantly running at 100%.
Pressure advance would be the next one. To check whether that's the issue, turn the print speed way down to maybe 50mm/s. At that speed pressure advance hardly matters, so the issue should disappear. That test only works if you ruled out infill and bad part cooling as culprits, since slowing down the print will also help for these two issues. Tuning pressure advance is not trivial though.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Ok, so you took it upon yourself to speak for groups of people that YOU DO NOT BELONG TO, because why exactly?
Because they think they are to weak to speek for themselves?
Because you think you need to force your help upon them?
You are exactly the guy "helping" the blind person in the third panel. Dude, really, get a grip. That behaviour is not ok.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
After 40 years I will continue to discuss the same thing with different people. Because while I talk about the same thing, these people are having the same discussion for the first time.
I'm also part of a religious minority, and I have had to answer the same questions for my whole life.
This means, I know all the things someone might ask or say, and I already know what to answer. It's super easy.
So you have the choice: Learn your "performance" and easily walk through it or choose to be an asshole with the purpose of being misunderstood. Sounds like an easy choice to me, but you do you.
Edit: Please read your links before posting them. The first one is about an entirely different problem that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The second one is just a teaser text for a video that's not available anymore.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
That's a good takeaway and it's one I can totally agree with.
Does it use these terms? When you go shopping, do you sausage packs with any of these terms on the package in a positive way?
"Now with 100% more cruelty! These sausages were produced with extra violence!"
I have never seen any of that. Yes, the system is based on exploitation, cruelty and violence, but these terms are explicitly avoided in any business communication, just because it's impossible to spin them in a positive way.
Instead, meat packaging will show a happy cow on a nice pasture in the mountains, surrounded by untouched, pristine nature. Texts on the packaging emphasize how happy and well-treated the animals are.
There's no trace of high-density indoor farming, live animal transports or slaughter houses on the packaging.
Same with exploitative labour: Look at e.g. the Amazon website. Where do you see anything about them praising themselves for exploiting low-wage workers?