[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 5 months ago

You're not making sense. What you've asked implies an expectation on your part. No surprise is involved.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

you tell me why you refuse to read links to ecofascism in the mainstream media

I haven't refused as nobody has asked me to read the linked-to articles. They've only expected me to.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't think your interpretation of DeVault is fair here to be honest.

It's not an interpretation. DeVault used a different word in place of the word that Stallman used, with a different and broader meaning. Regardless of your understanding of how DeVault's word is used, the defined meaning of the word implies that Stallman supports pedophilia. DeVault's use of the word is an outrageous slander which has the potential to be disasterous for Stallman. Indeed that seems to have been DeVault's intent.

I don't think DeVault's interpretation of Stallman is fair. Indeed, I think it was malicious and deceitful. I think your interpretation of DeVault is naive and fails to take into account just how serious the consequences of accusing someone of supporting pedophilia can get.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 11 months ago

research is fast becoming a catalogue of mishaps, malfeasance and misconduct

Uh.. "becoming"?

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 11 months ago

if anyone more knowledgeable than ne could either confirm that it's nonsense or give me a way that it's actually potentially possible based on some legitimate scientific theory

Ah, an actual answer.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 11 months ago

We all know it's made up and in the end there is no actual, definitive, real answer

We are here for the creative exercise of finding an answer that fits the universe of the show and episode.

OP's question gives the impression that they're here for an actual answer.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You won't be able to make sense of it because the idea is just some nonsense words made up by writers as a means of allowing the story they wanted to tell to be told. It doesn't make sense because it's writing, not science.

Edit: fascinated by the downvotes.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

prosocial behavior in humans

I'll just cut-and-paste from another comment:

"Human beings must necessarily cooperate and aid each other in order to survive. It’s how our species evolved. However, that doesn’t mean humans only ever aid each other, or even that they care about others except as a means to survive. Humans will cooperate when it’s beneficial and also stab their fellow humans in the back, step on them and exploit them when it’s beneficial. That’s why all we have are systems of elites and peasants, filled with squalor and death."

differing levels of exploitation

And yet never an absence of exploitation.

So not sure what your point is.

That humans in general, including fellow labourers, are what are reckless of the health and life of the labourer, not just "capital". You're deluding yourself by limiting your criticism to capital alone. Or even worse, deluding yourself by assigning blame to capital alone.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

www.youtube.com

Pass.

If you're not able to express succinctly in prose whatever idea you think I need to waste my time watching be revealed in a YouTube video then I suspect it's not an idea worth paying attention to.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Is it actually better?

No idea, I don't use either. I don't even know what you mean by "better" in this context.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

rah

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF