enkers

Fucking math hipsters. The f(x) mod 10 = {0, 5} answers are classics for a reason. Get your head out of your ass. Sure 7+9 is a good niche answer, but it just doesn’t have as satisfying a resolution.

Could I interest you in bruschetta, and hummus and veggies instead?

There are a ton of different variations of the golden rule that mostly have slightly different implications. Pretty much every religion has some flavour of it, and there’s a good reason for that.

Cooperation has for a long time been a necessary part of human life if one wishes to accomplish much of anything, and the golden rule has long been a building block of cooperation. Of course, it’s not particularly scientific and it’s precise implementations, as you’ve noticed, are either vague or not fully correct.

Enter game theory. The prisoner’s dilemma problem is a model cooperative game that explores various behaviour patterns between two parties. As it turns out, some of the best strategies to maximize personal gain given other opponents with unknown strategies are called: “forgiving tit-for-tat” strategies.

Basically, cooperate until you’re betrayed, punish betrayal, but then return to cooperation. I think if you squint a bit, you can kinda see how there’s similarity to the golden rule.

Veritasium has a pretty informative video on the subject: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM

In short, yeah, it’s pretty good.

Betrayed desires?

Being cringe A.F., as the kids say, is a power that grows with age. (:

In 2009, CNN’s current CEO and chairman was called the 65th most powerful person in the world by Forbes.

I wonder if he’d have any financial incentive one way or the other?

I cast counterspell. I’m now thinking of puppies.

That shit works IRL too. Why do you think therapy practices often have themselves positioned in front of a wall of books? Not that it’s a bad thing; it’s good for outcomes to believe your therapist is competent and well educated.

There’s nothing wrong with shearing sheep if there’s no exploitation occurring. The problem is when you add a profit motive to keep breeding animals designed with their exploitation in mind.

However, I’m going to go out on limb here, and say there probably aren’t many sheep in the care of vegans except on animal sanctuaries. The important thing is to stop buying wool and funding animal exploitation.

Lol, yeah, same. r/VCJ helped me go vegan too. My first time there was so confusing and anger inducing.

“Rectuma Dentata”, what a wonderful phrase

Rectuma Dentata ain’t no passing craze

I agree, and understand change takes time. But to be clear, I’m saying advocating for half measures is relatively ineffective, not that half measures themselves have no effect.

Really? That’s how things play out in reality for sure, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be calling for anything less than a complete abolition of animal exploitation and cruelty. But let’s try it with some social movement that’s often discussed on Lemmy to be sure. Do you think this is a good take:

“You shouldn’t call for an end to the genocide in Gaza, that’s unrealistic. Just stick to ‘Israel should try and kill fewer Palestinians.’ Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.”

The problem of advocating for half measures is that you don’t properly communicate that the behavior in question is unacceptable. It sends a mixed message: “It’s bad and you shouldn’t do it, but it’s still OK to do a little.”

If you can’t understand the difference between structure and content, there’s no point in discussing further.

I don’t mean to equate anything here, but do you think that would have been an effective strategy for social change in other movements?

Like: “What if we just did a little slavery? It’ll be much easier to convince slave owners to give up slavery if they got used to having just a few slaves.”

Do you think that would have been an effective strategy instead of calling for complete abolition?

Once again, I’m not trying to draw a comparison here, you could substitute any past social movement, but the logical structure should hold regardless.

For viewers in the developed west, “there’s plenty of stuff that we can do as individuals,” said Cowperthwaite: eat less meat, reduce food waste, buy less.

Disappointing the directors don’t fully reject consumption of animals, but not surprising since we can’t even covince people to wear a mask when they’re sick.

Why are you looking through 7 month old posts for stuff to get mad about? Get a life bruh.

It’s fine. I haven’t died yet, so I fail to see sufficient evidence that I eventually will.

What if Ralph exists independently of anyone acknowledging his concept? What if Ralph has always existed, and has just been waiting for a certain memer to discover him?

Pretty sure that was the original meaning; see also SMDH. The head shaking is the kid friendly version.

Edit: I was mistaken. :o