Lvxferre

In the early 00s, here in my city, it was fun to go to a certain pedestrians-only avenue to drink with friends. Or a date. If you do it now - yes, post-COVID lockdowns! - you can’t hold a conversation for five fucking minutes without someone interrupting you with advertisement. As a result, people use that avenue nowadays strictly to commute.

I’ve ditched TV when I was 14. (I don’t regret it.) But plenty people told me that open TV, and then cabled TV, became unbearable due to the sheer amount of advertisement.

Unless I recognise the number, I’m not bothering to pick the phone up any more. I’m probably not the only one doing it.

Are you noticing the pattern? Perhaps the internet suffers a bit more with it because people are a bit freer to do what they want here, but the problem is not exclusive to the internet, it’s everywhere advertisers appear. The world has become less fun due to advertisers (“how do people DARE to have fun and ignore our «marketing opportunities»?”).

Fucking Papal States. I wish that I could play Florence without becoming Excommunication Simulator!

my raw ground pork away from me.

Who are you, the Mett demon?
\

(It works great with beef, too. Bonus points for the raw yolk over it. If not homemade though there’s literally one bar that I trust with this, salmonella is not fun.)

As a mnemonic I usually read the “f” as “fucking”:

• tar, compress fucking pics.tar.gz with junk from ./pics
• tar, extract fucking pics.tar.gz

That’s only for scripting though. Most of the time I simply right-click the directory or archive, and let Engrampa deal with it.

I’m not from USA so I won’t answer your question directly (other posters are better for that). Instead I’ll point out a few things, based on knowledge of Linguistics plus other stuff:

• Cultural differences are somewhat objective, but how you split the cultures is subjective. As such don’t be surprised if different maps show different divisions.
• Language usually play a huge role, and isoglosses are often used to demarcate cultures. However, people shouldn’t confuse dialect+language with culture, as it’s perfectly possible to lump together two populations of different dialects as the same culture, or to split a single dialect into multiple cultures. Also, dialects themselves tend to be subjective, like the above.
• Geography does play a role too, but it boils down to interaction between settlements and identity. For example you’re more likely to contact the guy in the other city (thus share the same culture) if there’s just plains between your cities, instead of a big fucking mountain.
• A good place to look at the cultural divisions is the original settlements. Based on that I think that it’ll be easier to demarcate cultures in Eastern USA than in the West.
• More often than not cultures don’t give a fuck about government borders. So don’t be surprised if some cultures grab “chunks” of USA plus either Mexico or Canada.

I tend to agree with him and I think that the society where he lived is a great example of what happens when we let stupidity go rampant: Nazi Germany was a stupidocracy.

the[n] kindly explain to me who are these ‘stupid’ you are referring to in your original comment?

That’s the same as “I just made shit up about you, but I demand you to spoonfeed me because I’m entitled.” Sorry but the world does not revolve around your belly, and I’m not wasting my time with you, go be a self-demonstrating example elsewhere.

For other posters who might be reading this: what I’m considering “stupidity” and “the stupid” is already hinted by this, this and this. I can bring up some more formal definition if someone really wants, but the point is that it should not matter - take off “intentions” from the equation when handling people, stop giving people a free pass to cause harm because “oh no, that person is stupid, not malicious”.

Read the rest of the comment chain. As I already said, you don’t need to decide which sort of behaviour is stupidity or not; you just stop trying to decide what’s “intentional”.

In no moment I said or even implied that I shall be “the one to judge”. So stop making shit up.

And no, I am not fascist. Again, stop making shit up.

Also, you’re being a great example of what I’m talking about, because odds are that you’re full of “good intentions” behind your little witch hunt, but you’re effectively contributing with fascists by giving them a reasonable cover and desensitising people towards the word. Just like the boy who cried wolf contributed with the wolves.

The stupid already treat random shit as hostility, and they already shut off their reasoning (otherwise they wouldn’t be stupid). So there’s no change in that.

I believe that you’re right, when you say that we [humans in general] are all a bit like that. Even then, we’re fairly flexible - we only behave like morons when we get away with it.

Or maybe “dunno lol”.

That’s because I’m asking myself “what would Socrates answer?”, and answering like I think that he would. And Socrates was smart.

I think that @[email protected] got better the connotation of “stupid” from my comment. But just to be sure:

I’m defining “stupidity” here as behaviour coming from people who are able to reason, and thus can be held responsible for their actions. The intellectually disabled ones (plus children) are excluded by this definition.

I don’t have grounds to reach any reasonable conclusion about my own capabilities, since I have access to different info about myself vs. about other people.

I never tasted it but people claim that it’s strong-smelling. So perhaps it’s like goat or sheep?

But what about you?

“You’re supposed to pretend that you’re something speshul and above those filthy, disgusting and immoral animals!” - vegans.

EDIT, replying to a comment (from another poster? the same poster?) elsewhere. I think that it was answering this comment, but the thread got deleted so…

Yeah, not eating animals means we think we’re “above” them because that makes sense.

Yes, it does. Unless you also expect other omnivorous species and the carnivorous ones to refrain to eat meat… do you? (You don’t.)

And yes, this makes sense even if it hurts your “precious, oooh so preeecious!” feelings of superiority over other animals.

Also some other animal killer here in the comments flat out said “humans are above animals, this is fact” but evil vegans think they’re above animals!

• Whataboutism: “but what about what the other guy said?”, disingenuously shifting the focus from vegans to non-vegans. Also I’m not responsible for someone else’s statements.
• False dichotomy: implying that a non-vegan putting himself over other animals automatically excludes vegans from doing the same.

The false dichotomy is so fucking dumb that it makes me think that you’re implictly admitting to not have any actual argument at hand.

If you want a serious reply then bring up some something not so infested by fallacies as the above, otherwise I’ll just keep laughing at you, “sorry”.

(Arguably also loaded language but I’ll cut you some slack on that, given that it has some entertainment value.)

“please shut up!” // -the response of a child when faced with a situation that makes them uncomfortable

Two can play this game:

“Shut up” is also the sensible answer of adults when Christian zealots, nationalists and racists soapbox their shit.

Humans are animals as well.

No shit Sherlock.

Just keep them like lifestock (e.g. on a cotton field or labour camp as we have done in the past), and killing them should be completely fine according to your logic.

Following the reasoning that I’ve posted in another comment, another species keeping us as livestock wouldn’t be doing something immoral in my book; they’re defending their own interests, in detriment to ours. I don’t expect for example a jaguar to put my self-preservation above its cub’s desire for food.

And similarly it wouldn’t be immoral if we fought against it.

Contrariwise to vegans I’m not putting humans on some holier-than-thou ground with intrinsically better moral grounds than the other species; it boils down to defence of one’s own interests. Take a clue from the fact that my avatar is a smoking chimp dammit.

Who cares about the victims if we just declare them lifestock. Great ethics!

Appeal to emotion and other forms of stupidity/fallacy/irrationality don’t work well against me. Try something else.

Although I’m suspecting that you guys’ approach is something else: ad nauseam / sealeoning, is it?

That’s part of the deal: you don’t need to. Once stupidity and malice are taken as morally equivalent, it becomes morally irrelevant to decide if someone’s actions are motivated by one or another.

My point is that people give a free pass to actions harming the others, as long as they’re seen as “unintentional”; for example, the “powerful psychopaths” OP talks about often rely on it. And yet nobody knows someone else’s intentions, we know at most what others do and what they say.

So for example. Your business relies on blood diamonds? You’re financing terrorism and should be treated as such, regardless of your intentions. Your corporation employs slave work? You shall be treated as a slaver, committing crimes against humankind.

You do need to take into account if someone is able to be held responsible for one’s own actions. But we already do this anyway, so no change.

Stop caring about intentions. Stop giving the stupid a free pass. Treat stupidity as a type of malice, and act accordingly.

I believe that this alone should be enough to address the sykos on power. Easier said than done.

OP, you’re aiming at the wrong target.

The issue is with the medium, not the discourses being conveyed through the medium.

The issue isn’t people defending LGBTQ+ issues, or criticising capitalism, or criticising cars, or proposing environmental issues. The issue is the megaphone itself, the fact that everyone in social media thinks that one’s own views are so important, so holy OH SO PRECIOUS that we need to broadcast them.

And by “we” I’m including myself and likely you.