Juice [none/use name]

  • 0 Posts
  • 63 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: May 27th, 2022

help-circle














  • Juice [none/use name]@hexbear.nettoGames@lemmygrad.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I think because their media consumption is gamified. If i post certain things you get down votes and negative comments citing convincing (but fallacious) arguments that make me feel inferior. If I post other things I get positive comments and upvotes that make me feel smart.

    Once people get conditioned to it they’re basically immune to facts since facts that run contrary to their social conditioning make them feel yucky.


  • I’m all about holding elected officials responsible, but this goes too far. Joe Biden is pictured with the Bloodletter weapon from Bloodborne, which is a str/bloodtinge weapon, when Biden has always been a quality build. That means he would be holding Ludwig’s Holy Blade, the only true quality weapon in the game.

    The left needs to stop promoting false narratives and start dealing with facts before making baseless propaganda, or regular people will never take us seriously





  • You shouldn’t reject parts of evolution because Malthus used them to justify his political theory

    This is not what I said. I said that, according to David Harvey, Darwin based his theory of evolution on the writings of Malthus. I’m saying that I believe that this has flawed the theory, as it is based partially on a flawed premise. It doesn’t make the theory completely unusable, a good, incomplete, flawed theory can still make correct predictions. but in certain circumstances the inherent logic, the way it handles certain questions, it will produce flawed conclusions. This is true for every system of formal logic, it is an inherent contradiction of all logical systems (epistemic crisis and incompleteness.) But to varying degrees, and to what extent, and how it produces these flawed conclusions is important to consider.

    The best example I can think of while sitting in my car about to go unload groceries is gynecology. Does it effectively diagnose or treat disease and abnormalities? Yes. Do we have a good enough mastery of human reproduction to alter the likelihood of pregnancy? Also yes. The science is sound. But the practice of gynecology is often needlessly, senselessly painful, almost cruel, even when practiced by conscientious caring doctors. Why? It’s because the founder of gynecology made his discoveries by torturing and experimenting on living slave women, without anesthetics, and many parts of that tradition persist. Because they haven’t been readdressed or reconsidered. And maybe because it serves some other social purpose as well.

    Science often fails as a form of critique and self discovery. So I’m just out here asking questions to improve my own understanding. I’m a little skeptical of your use of the term “scientifically sound.” Especially coming from a fellow hexbear who should know about bourgeois scientism.