I can't believe this racist sexist misogynistic homophobic transphobic American Russian bot would say something so hateful. He should be immediately canceled and have his bank account seized.
Honestly I was just trying to find hard rhymes to make an entire verse rhyming with orange
Fair enough. I've talked before about the difference between the popular history and real history, and when making statements like the above it's typically using pop history to engage with a common shorthand (knowing that I often don't use shorthand resulting in massive effortposts)
The people who accuse others of hate seem to be the most hateful people alive today, and usually the most actually bigoted. Like the national socialists of 1938, they are particularly ugly because they think their hatred and bigotry is morally justified and makes them good people.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-x-exodus-could-bluesky-spike-spark-end-of-elon-musks-social-media-platform-13254722
No. Jesus you're retarded sky news.
No. Jesus you're retarded sky news.
There are more psychopaths in the world...
... than I thought years ago.
Fukken socialists don't want to build anything and just want it all handed to them, including trained workers. None of that stuff is so hard, but you have to actually put the work in and train someone. Instead of that because it is "Le hard", they want illegal trained workers from Mexico who they don't even need to follow labor law with because they're illegals anyway.
(aw shit, here I go again!)
I was on track to be childless. The thing is, you're looking out on the rest of your life and you can see the moment that you're going to pay off all of your debts, you can see the moment that you'll own all of your stuff in the clear, you can see the moment when you'll have enough money to retire.
But it just makes you feel empty. Like is the purpose of a human being to rack up debt, then pay off that debt, and then getting enough money to not have to work for a few years before you die? Is the measure of the time that you spent on Earth the amount of money you have been able to make for a global megacorporation?
In a very real way, we are directly connected to many forms of life that came before us. Every human alive is a descendant of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, two humans who represent bottlenecks in our genetics at different times, and before that our hominid progenitors, and before that our mammalian progenitors, and so on and so forth all the way back to the first life on Earth. So we are the inheritors of flame that has been burning for a billion years. In that sense, it seems quite selfish to think that we ought to extinguish that fire for our own immediate gratification, or to make some petty political point. You are just an individual small piece of something much larger, and the fact that you're such a small piece should be humbling, but the fact that you are the sole protector of your piece of flame also speaks to your importance and the gravity of extinguishing that flame. Having and raising kids is part of being part of the project of life on Earth, and besides that part of the project of human civilization. To not take part in the grand project both of life on Earth and of human civilization is certainly every individual person prerogative, but the meaning in life is found in service to others, and being of service to generations that may never know your name or your face but will only exist because of your efforts is certainly the greatest service many of us can directly achieve.
We are in a world where more people are choosing not to have kids then choosing to have kids. Often those people think that they're saving the world. They claim that the future won't be worth living in because of climate change or the like. My pity such people because I really believe that they have been sold a lie about the nature of life. Ask anyone of these people if they want to commit suicide today because tomorrow might be worse, and virtually none of them would say yes because life wants to continue. Hard times have always existed, the reason that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam exist is that the human race came so close to the brink of extinction that one man was able to become the father of all humanity, and at another point in history one woman was able to become the mother of all humanity. In spite of times being hard, those humans didn't decide to lay down and die, they fought to live and to continue the human project, and compared to those harsh days in some ways we live in Eden. But the one reason we aren't living in Eden is that a lot of people have lost touch with their fundamental humanity and fundamental connection to the rest of life on Earth, they think they are individualist without realizing that while they are an individual they are part of many larger wholes -- the whole of the human race, and the whole of life on Earth (and every single creature is made of the remains of long dead stars)
I also see refusing to have kids (to be distinguished from various forms of inability, an ability to have kids and capacity to succeed at raising kids paired with a refusal to take up the call) as a transcendental statement of self-hatred. I am made up of a little bit of my mother and a little of my father, and they in turn are made up of a little bit of each of their parents, meaning that I am made up of a little bit of each of those parents as well. This is true in a genetic level, I look a lot like my dad who looks like his dad. It's also deeply true on a cultural level, in spite of an entire lifetime of experiences I was forged by my parents in my earliest years and see the world through the lens that they molded at that time. That lens is the lens through which I decide how to mold the next generation, and so my son will grow up to be himself, but also a little bit of me, and a little bit of his grandparents, and a little bit of his great-grandparents, and those great grandparents were molded by his great great grandparents, and so in this way all of those people have a place in the future genetically and culturally, but for the people who refuse to partake in the human project, their story will end in just a few more short decades. It is something stronger than suicide, because suicide only ends one life, the willful ending of a line not just ends you, but ensures that no one like you exists in the future. I don't hate anyone enough to want that for them.
I do want to make it clear that while the project of life on Earth is certainly one of the things that we participate in, it isn't the only thing that we participate in. One of the mistakes that many ideologies make is assuming that it has to capture the whole of human existence. I wouldn't say for example that some drunk lout who has and then abuses 15 kids is more moral than a couple who only has two or three kids but gives them all the love in the world. Although I'm sad that he chose that route I would even be willing to entertain the idea that Isaac Newton though he died celibate nonetheless contributed so much to the human project that perhaps that contribution alone is his immortality project. The philosopher king Marcus Aurelius is known around the world for the meditations that were published by his friends upon his death, meditations that spoke to an ideology that has transcended culture for a thousand years, contrasting to his son Commodus who was not a philosopher king and arguably is remembered by history as part of the cause of the fall of the Roman empire, one of a string of weak emperors who made collapse inevitable, and so his biggest positive contribution to the world ended up being quite different from having kids. Aristotle I believe had kids, but it is indisputable that his works of philosophy had a larger impact on the world for the next 2,000 years. I've heard one hypothesis that the Nichomachean ethic was written for his son but I've also heard that disputed. Perhaps the most impactful thing he would have done during his life was train a young Alexander the Great, who would go on to build an empire from the Mediterranean all the way to India. Even today, there are many whispers of that action, for example prior to the Hellenistic Greeks reaching India, Indians rarely created the statues of people, but afterwards it became an important part of their culture. That being said, I think we have to be careful not to overestimate the importance of our personal projects. For example, many people think that they will be made immortal through contributions to feminism. There were feminists in ancient greece, and in ancient rome, but their individual efforts did not lead to a lasting change. That doesn't mean that change can't happen or shouldn't be strived for, but I think we have to be very careful about considering such things our immortality project because they can be dashed far more quickly than it took to build them. More over, almost every book that has ever been written that is older than a certain age has been lost. Most every philosophy has been forgotten. There are entire civilizations that we have essentially new evidence of ever existing, even though the descendants of those who lived there live among us. Perhaps what this really tells us is that we should be aiming at a diversity of immortality projects, because we don't know what we do that will be important.
As for the idea that men making jokes about their wives and families means that they wish they didn't have them or hate them, I think that's a vast misunderstanding of how humor works for men. Male best friends will bust each other's chops all the time. Men who adore their wives will sneak in a little misogynistic joke and wait for her to catch it. Humor builds bonds and is a sign of affection. If you're in a male group and they stop joking with you, that's when things are at their most dangerous because you're no longer "one of them". Moreover, Men and women will sometimes flirt with jokes about the other, especially when the joke is "obviously I don't think this, that's why it's funny I'm saying it". I sometimes make shocking jokes to my wife about various taboo subjects, but that joke isn't funny if I'm a monster. It's only funny if in 14 years I've proven to her that I'm not a monster and the idea that I am one is absurd. There is bonding in reinforcing the mutual trust and closeness that saying shocking things without consequence presents, as in "I'm comfortable enough to say this stupid thing knowing you'll understand I'm joking, and you're comfortable enough to hear this stupid thing and understand I'm joking because it's really bad if it's not a joke"
One really interesting thing is that once I'd written the above about humor, my wife came in talking about a friend she's fighting with flipping out over a joke she made. This actually makes sense in the context I've been discussing, because with the trust and closeness broken by fighting, the joke helped her understand just how badly their relationship had degraded at this point. It shows that the concept I refer to above isn't strictly gendered.
I was on track to be childless. The thing is, you're looking out on the rest of your life and you can see the moment that you're going to pay off all of your debts, you can see the moment that you'll own all of your stuff in the clear, you can see the moment when you'll have enough money to retire.
But it just makes you feel empty. Like is the purpose of a human being to rack up debt, then pay off that debt, and then getting enough money to not have to work for a few years before you die? Is the measure of the time that you spent on Earth the amount of money you have been able to make for a global megacorporation?
In a very real way, we are directly connected to many forms of life that came before us. Every human alive is a descendant of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, two humans who represent bottlenecks in our genetics at different times, and before that our hominid progenitors, and before that our mammalian progenitors, and so on and so forth all the way back to the first life on Earth. So we are the inheritors of flame that has been burning for a billion years. In that sense, it seems quite selfish to think that we ought to extinguish that fire for our own immediate gratification, or to make some petty political point. You are just an individual small piece of something much larger, and the fact that you're such a small piece should be humbling, but the fact that you are the sole protector of your piece of flame also speaks to your importance and the gravity of extinguishing that flame. Having and raising kids is part of being part of the project of life on Earth, and besides that part of the project of human civilization. To not take part in the grand project both of life on Earth and of human civilization is certainly every individual person prerogative, but the meaning in life is found in service to others, and being of service to generations that may never know your name or your face but will only exist because of your efforts is certainly the greatest service many of us can directly achieve.
We are in a world where more people are choosing not to have kids then choosing to have kids. Often those people think that they're saving the world. They claim that the future won't be worth living in because of climate change or the like. My pity such people because I really believe that they have been sold a lie about the nature of life. Ask anyone of these people if they want to commit suicide today because tomorrow might be worse, and virtually none of them would say yes because life wants to continue. Hard times have always existed, the reason that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam exist is that the human race came so close to the brink of extinction that one man was able to become the father of all humanity, and at another point in history one woman was able to become the mother of all humanity. In spite of times being hard, those humans didn't decide to lay down and die, they fought to live and to continue the human project, and compared to those harsh days in some ways we live in Eden. But the one reason we aren't living in Eden is that a lot of people have lost touch with their fundamental humanity and fundamental connection to the rest of life on Earth, they think they are individualist without realizing that while they are an individual they are part of many larger wholes -- the whole of the human race, and the whole of life on Earth (and every single creature is made of the remains of long dead stars)
I also see refusing to have kids (to be distinguished from various forms of inability, an ability to have kids and capacity to succeed at raising kids paired with a refusal to take up the call) as a transcendental statement of self-hatred. I am made up of a little bit of my mother and a little of my father, and they in turn are made up of a little bit of each of their parents, meaning that I am made up of a little bit of each of those parents as well. This is true in a genetic level, I look a lot like my dad who looks like his dad. It's also deeply true on a cultural level, in spite of an entire lifetime of experiences I was forged by my parents in my earliest years and see the world through the lens that they molded at that time. That lens is the lens through which I decide how to mold the next generation, and so my son will grow up to be himself, but also a little bit of me, and a little bit of his grandparents, and a little bit of his great-grandparents, and those great grandparents were molded by his great great grandparents, and so in this way all of those people have a place in the future genetically and culturally, but for the people who refuse to partake in the human project, their story will end in just a few more short decades. It is something stronger than suicide, because suicide only ends one life, the willful ending of a line not just ends you, but ensures that no one like you exists in the future. I don't hate anyone enough to want that for them.
I do want to make it clear that while the project of life on Earth is certainly one of the things that we participate in, it isn't the only thing that we participate in. One of the mistakes that many ideologies make is assuming that it has to capture the whole of human existence. I wouldn't say for example that some drunk lout who has and then abuses 15 kids is more moral than a couple who only has two or three kids but gives them all the love in the world. Although I'm sad that he chose that route I would even be willing to entertain the idea that Isaac Newton though he died celibate nonetheless contributed so much to the human project that perhaps that contribution alone is his immortality project. The philosopher king Marcus Aurelius is known around the world for the meditations that were published by his friends upon his death, meditations that spoke to an ideology that has transcended culture for a thousand years, contrasting to his son Commodus who was not a philosopher king and arguably is remembered by history as part of the cause of the fall of the Roman empire, one of a string of weak emperors who made collapse inevitable, and so his biggest positive contribution to the world ended up being quite different from having kids. Aristotle I believe had kids, but it is indisputable that his works of philosophy had a larger impact on the world for the next 2,000 years. I've heard one hypothesis that the Nichomachean ethic was written for his son but I've also heard that disputed. Perhaps the most impactful thing he would have done during his life was train a young Alexander the Great, who would go on to build an empire from the Mediterranean all the way to India. Even today, there are many whispers of that action, for example prior to the Hellenistic Greeks reaching India, Indians rarely created the statues of people, but afterwards it became an important part of their culture. That being said, I think we have to be careful not to overestimate the importance of our personal projects. For example, many people think that they will be made immortal through contributions to feminism. There were feminists in ancient greece, and in ancient rome, but their individual efforts did not lead to a lasting change. That doesn't mean that change can't happen or shouldn't be strived for, but I think we have to be very careful about considering such things our immortality project because they can be dashed far more quickly than it took to build them. More over, almost every book that has ever been written that is older than a certain age has been lost. Most every philosophy has been forgotten. There are entire civilizations that we have essentially new evidence of ever existing, even though the descendants of those who lived there live among us. Perhaps what this really tells us is that we should be aiming at a diversity of immortality projects, because we don't know what we do that will be important.
As for the idea that men making jokes about their wives and families means that they wish they didn't have them or hate them, I think that's a vast misunderstanding of how humor works for men. Male best friends will bust each other's chops all the time. Men who adore their wives will sneak in a little misogynistic joke and wait for her to catch it. Humor builds bonds and is a sign of affection. If you're in a male group and they stop joking with you, that's when things are at their most dangerous because you're no longer "one of them". Moreover, Men and women will sometimes flirt with jokes about the other, especially when the joke is "obviously I don't think this, that's why it's funny I'm saying it". I sometimes make shocking jokes to my wife about various taboo subjects, but that joke isn't funny if I'm a monster. It's only funny if in 14 years I've proven to her that I'm not a monster and the idea that I am one is absurd. There is bonding in reinforcing the mutual trust and closeness that saying shocking things without consequence presents, as in "I'm comfortable enough to say this stupid thing knowing you'll understand I'm joking, and you're comfortable enough to hear this stupid thing and understand I'm joking because it's really bad if it's not a joke"
One really interesting thing is that once I'd written the above about humor, my wife came in talking about a friend she's fighting with flipping out over a joke she made. This actually makes sense in the context I've been discussing, because with the trust and closeness broken by fighting, the joke helped her understand just how badly their relationship had degraded at this point. It shows that the concept I refer to above isn't strictly gendered.
Considering that some places are still counting, there should be jail time for incompetence this severe.
I have to give Trump credit for the discipline it took primarily keep his messaging to truth social rather than bringing it back to Twitter.
The City of Toronto has 3 million visits to food banks, more than there are people in the city.
Sauce: https://www.dailybread.ca/research-and-advocacy/research/whos-hungry-report/
Sauce: https://www.dailybread.ca/research-and-advocacy/research/whos-hungry-report/
Lol rich white guy thinks he's the resistance for opposing the political candidate opposed by the deep state in dozens of countries, the media, most megacorporations, and pretty much every rich white guy except one.
This nigga would be casting shade at Luke Skywalker for sure.
This nigga would be casting shade at Luke Skywalker for sure.
It can certainly be both: if one group is eating grass-fed organic chicken breast, and the other is eating stuff that would otherwise be inedible but for a powerful chemical treatment that renders it not immediately dangerous to health, maybe if you just have a little bit of the latter it's fine, but what happens if it's all you can afford and you're eating a whole bunch of it?
So in that case, you have someone who might eat a little bit of the bad food but is mostly eating the good food, and maybe they have no effect whatsoever but the people who eat a whole lot of the bad food maybe there's a significant effect.
There's another thing that I read about that really completely changed my view on food: if you take a look at rations from World War i, they were basically regular food. It didn't really last that long, and it did spoil other than stuff like hardtack. Even if you go to World War ii, for the most part the rations were still generally real food, maybe selected a little bit more so that it doesn't spoil. If you take a look at an MRE today, there are some available from as far back as the Vietnam War where they are highly chemical and a surprising number of them are fully edible today.
There are YouTubers such as stevemre1987 who eat Vietnam era rations. Not every ration is still okay to eat, and there are some things that tend to go rancid, but there are still rations that old that are largely edible todayÀ Those YouTubers will sometimes look at a ration that is 10 or 15 years old and they are often largely intact. Virtually all MREs are designed to a specification where they will remain shelf-stable for 5 to 7 years. Compare this specification to virtually any food that one might prepare from fresh ingredients, and not only are they not shelf stable, they can't be simply refrigerated for very long, and even when Frozen there are significant limits on how long they can stay before getting spoiled.
Another thing is, the reason that modern MREs can be so old and so edible is that new technologies were developed that allowed food that was shelf stable to be produced. In order to make sure that in the event of a war the government could get as many rations as it needed, it released those technologies to food companies. Of course those technologies were not just beneficial for producing shelf stable military rations, they could be applied to standard foods in order to produce shelf stable packaged food that would last way longer than it had any business lasting. So what they did is they took that military technology for producing shelf stable military rations and applied it to the everyday foods that people eat. If you like some evidence of this, take a look at a corporate manufactured loaf of bread compared to something made in a local store bakery. The local store bakery bread will start to go stale and start to grow mold quite quickly, the corporate manufactured bread we'll just sit there for a shocking amount of time ready to eat. Something that is resistant to most forms of life growing on it, something that barely reacts to oxygen, something that can stay unrefrigerated on a shelf for a decade, you tell me if you think such a food is equivalent in fundamental nutritional value to real food made from real ingredients grown from nature, particularly ones grown with minimal insecticides and the like.
So in that case, you have someone who might eat a little bit of the bad food but is mostly eating the good food, and maybe they have no effect whatsoever but the people who eat a whole lot of the bad food maybe there's a significant effect.
There's another thing that I read about that really completely changed my view on food: if you take a look at rations from World War i, they were basically regular food. It didn't really last that long, and it did spoil other than stuff like hardtack. Even if you go to World War ii, for the most part the rations were still generally real food, maybe selected a little bit more so that it doesn't spoil. If you take a look at an MRE today, there are some available from as far back as the Vietnam War where they are highly chemical and a surprising number of them are fully edible today.
There are YouTubers such as stevemre1987 who eat Vietnam era rations. Not every ration is still okay to eat, and there are some things that tend to go rancid, but there are still rations that old that are largely edible todayÀ Those YouTubers will sometimes look at a ration that is 10 or 15 years old and they are often largely intact. Virtually all MREs are designed to a specification where they will remain shelf-stable for 5 to 7 years. Compare this specification to virtually any food that one might prepare from fresh ingredients, and not only are they not shelf stable, they can't be simply refrigerated for very long, and even when Frozen there are significant limits on how long they can stay before getting spoiled.
Another thing is, the reason that modern MREs can be so old and so edible is that new technologies were developed that allowed food that was shelf stable to be produced. In order to make sure that in the event of a war the government could get as many rations as it needed, it released those technologies to food companies. Of course those technologies were not just beneficial for producing shelf stable military rations, they could be applied to standard foods in order to produce shelf stable packaged food that would last way longer than it had any business lasting. So what they did is they took that military technology for producing shelf stable military rations and applied it to the everyday foods that people eat. If you like some evidence of this, take a look at a corporate manufactured loaf of bread compared to something made in a local store bakery. The local store bakery bread will start to go stale and start to grow mold quite quickly, the corporate manufactured bread we'll just sit there for a shocking amount of time ready to eat. Something that is resistant to most forms of life growing on it, something that barely reacts to oxygen, something that can stay unrefrigerated on a shelf for a decade, you tell me if you think such a food is equivalent in fundamental nutritional value to real food made from real ingredients grown from nature, particularly ones grown with minimal insecticides and the like.
I never saw you fighting openly fascist combination of state and corporate power to illegally silence protected political speech. Pretty sad if the only reason you care is that a political faction you don't like is allowed to speak.
I just realized that it's entirely possible that this time next year my country could have cheap gas and plastic straws.
I'd vote for someone just for those two things alone!
I'd vote for someone just for those two things alone!