[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 24 points 1 week ago

But they DO have the exclusive right. People want to be told the world is different - that it's better - but if we want to change it we need to see it for what it is. If we say "They don't have the right!" before we've done the work necessary to strip them of the right, then we'll never even understand how to start fixing this broken system.

[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 24 points 2 months ago

Yeah, my mom used to be upset that I didn't hold onto my old pokemon cards, but not only did I never have any rare ones that would be worth anything anyway, I used them how I wanted to when I wanted to, and when they stopped interesting me, I gave them to someone who was still interested. I don't regret that.

[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 23 points 2 months ago

Most republicans I know believe that their party, like their country and their religion, needs to be followed blindly; if their party supports it, it's good, and if their party rejects it, it's bad. End of story. No more thought will, or should, be put into it.

The people who go on and on about how America is the best because "freedom" are now working out whatever mental gymnastics they need to perform to justify voting for the man who said if you vote for him you won't need to vote anymore. They already chose to support Trump and his party - nothing they say or do anymore will change that decision.

[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 23 points 3 months ago
[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 22 points 4 months ago

Toxicity isn't as simple as "toxic = toxic + toxic." While some byproducts of plastic breakdown are toxic, the bacteria are further dissolving those as well, going until they get glucose, as they wouldn't be able to eat it if that wasn't the end product. There are probably still some toxic byproducts that get excreted rather than broken down, but plastic breakdown already releases toxins under normal conditions, so that's already a problem we're going to have to tackle. If these bacteria can get past the first issue of breaking it down in the first place, then that's a net positive.

[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 22 points 6 months ago

Except when you get more and more people in the group, the wants of any given individual get outweighed for larger, more generalized expenses. This is literally the same concept as taxes, just applied to a small enough group that an individual gets a real say in how the money is spent.

But if it works well it'll inevitably get popular, attract more users, and the voice of the many will drown out the voice of the few, with out-of-touch treasurers spending the money unwisely, becoming exactly the same in every way as taxes.

[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 22 points 6 months ago

The original story was written to convince children to settle for the life they have, rather than risk their livelihood searching for something different. The Disney version was modified to fit a more stereotypical "American Dream" lesson that believes making your own life can be rewarding.

The same story, but with differing endings for differing lessons following the differing mindsets of differing places at differing times. It's fun to think about how much a children's story can be changed to reflect the lesson its teller means to teach.

[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 22 points 6 months ago

I'm certainly not religious, but I understand that a lot of people use religion to supplement a lacking support network. Yes, they should find healthier ways to receive the support they need, but if you force them to abandon their religion without having another source of support to replace it, they're going to feel very isolated and scared, possibly leading to tears. Especially if their son forced them into that situation and then immediately left, showing complete disregard for their feelings.

[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 24 points 8 months ago

Correct, but the difference is that it's legitimate AND parasitic. So we can't just ignore it like they want to.

[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 24 points 8 months ago

This study is about the immense magnitude of cat predation, and your takeaway is that we shouldn't limit owned cat predation simply because un-owned cat predation is higher...

We estimate that cats in the contiguous United States annually kill between 1.3 and 4.0 billion birds (median=2.4 billion) (Fig. 1a), with ∼69% of this mortality caused by un-owned cats. The predation estimate for un-owned cats was higher primarily due to predation rates by this group averaging three times greater than rates for owned cats.

This study estimates that annual bird deaths by owned cat predation in the US is around a 750 million median figure, and you're just fine with that?

[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 22 points 10 months ago

Honestly, most of the people in places like that are people who already found their way out, and now just want to shoot the shit with other people who understand what they've been through. If I hadn't had my sister to talk to about our insane mom, it would have been a lot harder for both of us to move on from her and become healthy, well-rounded adults - I imagine internet communities like these are a good alternate resource for when people don't have real-life support from someone who understands what it's like. But yeah, when you've got a parent who thinks all of science is one big scam, you're never going to be able to see a legitimate therapist.

[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 24 points 10 months ago

The stripper's name? Albert Einstein.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

Signtist

joined 1 year ago