Tartas1995

@Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

Tartas1995 ,

I like the meme because of so many reasons.

Let's start with, if I am not misinformed, technically 21% of the levers could win against the rest of levers. Let's ignore the fact that those 21% levers are historically generally in favor of more genocide. And let's assume those 21% levers all go for third parties. Then they would still probably lose because they haven't voted for the same third party. So let's say those 21% are all committed to the cause and vote for the same party. In 2020, the biggest third party got 1.18%. but let's assume all previous third party voter unite and then there would be 1.72% third party voters. Now obviously those aren't part of the relevant 21% that we have been talking about but let's act as if. Now only 19.28% of all voter need to change their vote to third party. That are only 29 884 000 voters. Believe!

Tartas1995 ,

That was long? Oh.

Tartas1995 ,

Wait, he was running? Did someone care? Like did he have any realistic change that anyone would like him to get through the primaries? I mean he certainly didn't have the chance to get through them but maybe he had like 1 Supporter somewhere or something

Tartas1995 ,

I don't know what is there to figure out

Tartas1995 ,

I get your desire but honestly if RGB is someone's big issue with issue, then there are no issues.

Tartas1995 ,

I hate when people talk about system like capitalism and communism is so simplistic terms.

I mean this is about as vague and reasonable as "a man stole a Softdrink from the supermarket. Every man is a thief"

Tartas1995 ,

I like that you jump on a long rant over hierarchy and the unavoidability of it. Then rant over socialism how it is there is a hierarchy but people deny it. To quote me and act like my point was that hierarchy is tyrannical.

I am not sure who you are talking to but I hope you are enjoying yourself.

Sidenote, you are talking about property law systems, not a whole political system, remember that.

Tartas1995 ,

Still talking to someone else?

I mean, why concession? It makes it sound like I said it wasn't "all that good", after expressing that it was. I did neither. You are really talking to someone else. Who is it? And why respond to my message instead of theirs?

Or did you mistake my summarization of your vaguely stated opinion on a very big multifaceted issue, as me expressing support for your "fire bad" take?

Tartas1995 ,

What debate? Have you addressed my first comment to your first comment? No. Have you addressed my second comment to you talking to me without talking about anything related to what I said? No. Have you addressed my third comment about you talking to me as if we had a conversation while you haven't said anything addressing anything that was a response to what I said? No.

And I am not making an effort to make any kind of point? Dude you are talking to no one!

Tartas1995 ,

Are you a bot? If yes, nice bot.

This format is so cringe.

Tartas1995 ,

Who wouldn't be?

Tartas1995 ,

First of all, there are people who think it is funny, like me.

Additionally, sometimes people just aren't aware of stuff and people draw different lines. Apparently trump support has decreased since the verdict of his 34 felonies. That wasn't my line for sure; the racism and history of racism was; but apparently some people didn't care about the racism, transphobia, sexism, the sexualizing of his daughter, the cheating on his wife, the lies, ... But about the felonies. So instead of telling people to not speak out about it, don't engage.

Tartas1995 ,

I think you are very unfair in how you paint the picture. Biden shouldn't support genocide, obviously. But realistically, you have to choose between 2 genocide supporters. And "stopping trump" is a good reason to vote for 1 genocide supporter over the other. Obviously you don't like the genocide supporters and you shouldn't be forced to choose one but you are living in a (practically) 2 party system and both run a genocide supporter.

Tartas1995 ,

Me going to school for free, me going to the doc for free

"That is not free that you pay for it by your taxes"

Ok, me paying taxes for the same benefits that I had. Effectively paying back my debt. The debt doesn't control my life because if I lose my job, I don't have to pay my debt through taxes, if I change careers, I still pay what I can.

"That is communism!!! That is bad"

Elsewhere, the same service for the same cost

Person goes into debt to go to school, person goes into debt to go to doc

"That is good! Taking accountability"

Same person pay extra through interest rates.

"Usa! Usa! Usa! Low taxes! Small government! Freedom from government!!!"

Person is slaving away at their job because they can't afford losing their job and missing a pay check.

Okay buddy.

Tartas1995 ,

I think it is a bit unfair to give you shit for your question.

it is normal to confuse authoritarian system with restrictions of freedom. Because generally that is how it works. But not in this case...

Because it is the paradox of tolerance all over again. Technically it is authoritarian to ban slavery but it would be more authoritarian to allow it as people would own people... So on the scale of how authoritarian an action is, banning slavery is as anti-authoritarian as it gets and allowing slavery is as authoritarian as it gets. (Of course, a world without slavery and without any rules would be less authoritarian but... I think we know better than trying that with slavery)

I hope this helps in actually understanding the reason instead of being told what it is.

Tartas1995 ,

Not really. It is the tolerance paradox.

Banning slavery might be authoritarian but it is less authoritarian than allowing it. So on the political scale, banning slavery is anti-authoritarian and allowing it is authoritarian.

Tartas1995 ,

While I am strongly against a database of pregnant women, especially in regards of the obvious purpose of it.

I am not sure if I would call it cognitive dissonance... Fascistic? Sure.

The idea behind the tracking of pregnancy is the protection of the individual "Child" and "future member of the society" against "overreaching authoritarian forces" which could lead to the death of said "member". And the threat to the "child" is not the government but rather the mother and the supporting force would be the government. So placing the information to control into the hands of the government is an obvious choice.

In the case of gun ownership, the government is the threat for which the guns exist. The government is the "overreaching authoritarian force" and the gun owner is the "member". The government isn't the ally and therefore can't be trusted with such a list.

Again I am not agreeing them these people. I just don't think that is cognitive dissonance. I think a better example would the desire for a small government and a database of pregnant women to spy on.

Again imo idiots but not hypocrites for that (specifically... Because they are, just not for that)

Tartas1995 ,

Oh I agree but I am strictly talking from the perspective of the idiots who would want such a list.

They want the government to police those poor women in order to "protect" the "child", so the government can be "trusted" from their pov. And they want the government to police the women because from their pov, the mother is a danger to the "child".

In the case of the guns, their opinion is that the guns will protect them against the government and so you don't want them to have that list.

Tartas1995 ,

Vanilla might not be good in a lot of things... Ice cream... Se... But here it is pretty nice!

Tartas1995 ,

People just don't understand that political discussions are in nature pr work. You need a good pr strategy to succeed in what you want and impulsively selected actions might be bad for your pr work. And the truth is most people don't think about pr before posting about why XYZ is bad.

Literally the British government fucked themselves like that. They wanted to avoid responsibility and found someone to blame in their pr work. A few decades later and their country is leaving a huge market to avoid having to comply to the market's rules, while also kinda wanting to join the market for trading and having to comply again for economically reasons (and the threat of terrorism due to north Irland)... While being unable to make it happen without splitting up the country due to people rejecting that by eu bad. So the best they can do is trade deals with little to no impact on their trading. And while everything goes so well, parts of it are looking into leaving them. Politics are pr work. If you want to have an impact, then play in the big leagues, play like it.

Tartas1995 ,

Because it is so easy to change the justices in the supreme court.

Tartas1995 ,

Do you understand how they could change it? Like what their options are and the implications of it?

Tartas1995 ,

I feel like Dems are "centrists"(tm) but yeah. I take the "ignorant and privileged centrists" over the "actively hateful fascists"

Tartas1995 ,

Well, I would love if that concept could be retired and forgotten sooner than later. But as things are right now, e.g. CRT is required to get there and CRT requires the concept of race :/

Tartas1995 ,

E.g. it is a reality that there is currently some correlations between race and e.g. poverty. Even we don't consider those correlations when enacting laws, we create unjust laws that impact some races more than others, which would feedback into those correlations.

Extremely stupid example for. CT (critical theory in general), if your government would enact a law that would state that the government would build you your dream house for 5 millions. Even if it is more expensive than 5 million. Then "everyone" can get their dream house on paper, but in reality only the rich can get it and they get additional wealth that the general public would have to cover. Impoverishing the poor more and enrich the wealthiest more. So an unjust law.

Tartas1995 ,

I strongly dislike the design because it places a 3rd alternative in between the two parties. America needs a left wing party. Not another right wing one.

Tartas1995 ,

Can you link it? I wanna know what he "learned"

Tartas1995 ,

Thanks

Tartas1995 ,

I read it here before but the best way is deconstructing a specific case of the person in question choosing. The problem is that replacing one influencer with another one won't change the understanding issue of misplaced trust in media/people.

I think that these things should be voluntary by the way. Both for success chances and pure respect for your sibling.

Ask him if they would be interested. Then make them choose an episode. Prepare yourself. Ask them to prepare a little document in which they express their understanding and lesson that they learned from the episode. Ask them if they are willing to investigate how true these things are. Look for evidence together or alone. When done, get together and talk about the truthfulness of the ideas.

Alternatively ask yourself if they have some kind of expertise in something and look if there is a Joe Rogan episode about and suggest them to watch it. The deconstruction would happen automatically. You can help by ask them questions about it. Having to vocalize criticism towards something is an amazing reflection exercise.

Tartas1995 ,

"Help starving children!"

"But you wouldn't want to be there! Gotten!!!"

Coherent. Very coherent.

Tartas1995 ,

It is actually worse than that.

E.g. if you want to help starving children, does that mean you want to live in e.g. north Korea?

To me, it seems wanting to help e.g. starving north Korean children, without wanting/planning to get any reward like seeing less starving children on your way to the supermarket, makes you a better person.

Tartas1995 ,

The official version of the conversation between trump and Putin doesn't include any mention of the spy list or anything sus.

Without looking into that because it doesn't really solve the issue, there are people who claim the primary source for what was said, would be a daily caller journalist. If that claim is true and the implications are up to you to figure out, as it doesn't really change anyway.

The request seems to be real while he didn't technically asked for spies. Spies aren't usually on the payroll as a spy either.

Trump himself didn't had to provide putin with the list directly anyway as marolago isn't fort Knox.

In short, a shit Tonne of what ifs and maybe, where a trump is an idiot that thought "Putin wants list of spies? I want list of spies" and stored it in a hotel, would be enough.

Tartas1995 ,

Question, who should someone who wants to end the genocide, vote for? What is your suggestion? How and why would that vote change the situation for the better? How likelihood is the desired outcome?

Tartas1995 ,

Thanks for the advice but it doesn't answer my questions.

It also ignores the context of the conversation. The commenter seems to be implying that you shouldn't vote for Biden. And I would like to hear their suggestion.

Tartas1995 ,

I am happy to see your passion. And I agree with you but I am asking the person, whom I should be voting for in their opinion. I want to hear THEIR opinion. Thanks.

Tartas1995 ,

You understand that responding in Public to a public discourse is the default unless you want to hide something.

Blaming me for "wasting everyone's time" for asking someone else a question in public in response to that person's public statement, how odd.

How is it leading and disingenuous to ask someone about their opinion on an issue? Especially if I don't limit their options what so ever. I guess it is leading if you already think it is disingenuous, which would raise the question "what makes you think that?". But I don't want to waste your time like you wasted mine and everyone else's by responding to a question that you didn't attempt to even answer and wasn't asked to you either.

Tartas1995 ,

I asked for whom to vote from a ending the genocide perspective and why that. You "answered" by telling me what I should be doing outside of voting.

That is like someone asks you how they could fix their dietary habits and you tell them to do sports. Sports are probably a good advice but it isn't helping them to fix their dietary habits. It is missing the point. It isn't answering the question.

I am not gonna bother with your rhetorical points insult, as it is based in the assumption that I don't want an answer because I don't accept answers that fail to answer the question.

Whether or not, a question is answered, is a pretty binary issue. but I think you mean the election with 7(?) candidates. Of which I would accept any as a response, if one was given. I am not sure about how that is binary though.

Oh the wasting time stuff was to point out the absurd nature of your impaction that I am wasting anyone's time by asking a question that they can ignore, compared to bothering someone who is actively looking for an answer with non-answers.

Tartas1995 ,

Mate, I would agree with you if you wouldn't fail to realize that I ask someone who made a statement regarding the election in the context of ending the genocide. Acting like I set the scene, is dishonest. I am sure you aren't doing it intentional. You just forgot.

And you are right and wrong about being unable about ending a genocide by voting. You are also kinda unable to end it by protesting... Until it actually works. It is an attempt. An attempt is something and something is better than nothing while people die.

Also let's not act like saying you wouldn't vote for Biden over it isn't pressuring the current one in power.

And you might also should have realized that in my question I asked included the likelihood of the desired outcome. So I had the whole breaking election promises, betting on the wrong horse and it all being fucking pointless covered.

And btw. Now you gave me an answer to my question from your perspective, it doesn't matter because it doesn't change shit. In other words, vote for whoever you want for other reasons. I know your opinion and I got my answer from you. Still not the guy that I asked but at least an answer.

Tartas1995 ,

Because they, unlike you, made the statement.

It is that simple. I heard you out too. I just wanted to highlight that you choose to engage with my question to another person. Highlighting how extremely odd this interaction is. I asked another person a question. You chose to engage that question but you avoided answering while insulting me. In the end, you finally express your opinion. I had to point out that you finally answered the question that was the starting point of our conversation that you chose to engage with, in hopes you realize that I actually want an fucking answer and that i ain't asking for much of an discussion or proof standard but just a fucking opinion. and again you could have just avoided it completely, you chose to engage.

Tartas1995 ,

That man is onto something. God bless!

Tartas1995 ,

Out of curiosity, let's say someone wants to make the best possible decision for Palestinians. Meaning using their vote to produce the best possible outcome for Palestinians.

Who should they be voting for? How would it impact the situation? Why would that be the best? What is the risk assessment? In other words, how likely is successful, how good is success and how damaging is failure?

Tartas1995 ,

So you believe that voting for trump would have caused a better result? Because otherwise how did it backfire? If it makes no material difference?

If you don't think voting trump would have been better, who should people have voted for? I don't want to repeat my question but now I am curious about your answers to both last and next election.

Tartas1995 ,

It is fine that you feel that way but I would like to know their thoughts. If they are right, they will be able to argue their position. If they are just e.g. smug, then they will avoid giving answers and at some point, reflection might kick in and they might actually try to argue with themselves and find the answers that we are all looking for. If they are just smug, that is. I don't know but maybe they have the answers

Tartas1995 ,

Honestly, to me that seems to be evidence that they were never good but just lucky.

They never understood how to play with expectations or culture. How to shock people with the absurd nature of reality. They never understood comedy. They just happened to say stuff that people liked. Maybe because they were famous? And just as fame makes you pretty, it makes you funny?

I don't know but clearly they never understood their craft. Pure luck got them away.

Tartas1995 ,

The irony is that you agree with me that they need to understand expectations and culture while dismissing my point about the lack of understanding the culture and expectations, because otherwise they wouldn't need to complain about struggling with the expectations and culture of today. You can claim that it is a small minority that creates the issue but if they are actually impacted by the minority than that minority might be the minority of people who used to like their stuff.

There is a "minority" of people that don't like my posts here. I am not complaining about it. Because it isn't affecting me and why is that? Because they aren't my customers. Comedians have the same situation, if the minority aren't their customers, they have no reason to care, but they do because it is their customers.

So in essence, you agree with the fact that you need to understand expectations and culture for comedy, and I am saying through the fact that they complain about culture, shows that they don't understand their job and got lucky that they happen to be in tune with the culture of the past because they wouldn't know how to fit in that culture if they aren't in it already anyway.

Tartas1995 ,

You seem confused by what I meant.

I am not saying criticizing the culture and expectations is morally wrong and should be punished. I am saying if you have an entertainment job and your job is comedy then it is your job to understand the culture and expectations to make funny jokes. They are struggling with "hate" because they experience the criticism that they want to cast on the culture. And they get the criticism because they fail at being a comedian. They don't understand the culture and expectations of their audience. Unless they do and they aren't actually bothered by being "cancelled" because they just lean into reactionary politics. Do you see how concluding that someone is failing to adapt to a changing market isn't the same as saying the change is good. I am sure the housing market in east Ukraine isn't great and buying a house there now is probably a bad idea, isn't the same as saying it is good that Russia is invading them.

"Comedy is about criticizing culture" no. There are wordplays. Nothing about them is criticizing culture. There is a kind of comedy that is about criticizing. That doesn't mean that as a professional comedian, you need to do that. So as a professional comedian, you choose that kind of comedy and then you choose what kind of jokes you want to make. There are many, even political, comedians that criticize the Public, and they don't get "cancelled". Because they understand what kind of audience they have. Which as a professional is your job. And lastly there are a few things that you can criticize, you can punch down, straight and up. If you are mad that the "woke" don't like it when you punish down, which you do as a successful comedian, when you criticize "vocal minorities" or make fun of the struggle of the average person. Then maybe realize that if you want to do that comedy, laugh with the average person and punch up or straight. Remember, you want your audience to think it is funny too. If you don't like that power from the bottom controls the state, then you just don't like democracy and that is fair but then I would suggest you fight that before trying to specifically and exclusively save "punch down" jokes.

"You are contradicting yourself" I am not. Let's say I have 50million fans in America. I am touring and make millions. Then a "minority" of people in America are my fans. I was mocking the use of "minority" because if the small vocal minorities have such a influence on the public that I am losing fans then maybe... Just maybe... It isn't a minority of people. Or at least the overlap of my fans and that "minority" is pretty big. Maybe you are just out of touch with your audience. And in the end, if people don't like your act, people don't like your act. Your act sucks in the "getting good reactions" department.

"Woke idealism can't accept criticism" mhm ok sure buddy. "Woke" person: "I don't like this comedian because I think his jokes are offensive" comedian: "I am being cancelled😭😭😭 why can't they take criticism???😭😭😭 Comedy is about freedom of speech 😭😭😭 why are they taking their liberty to speak and use it to criticize my culture???😭😭😭 They can't take a joke😭😭😭" I mean the comedians really handle the criticism well. You are right. Cringe "woke" people. Ha.

Tartas1995 ,

That would work wonders for sure

Tartas1995 ,

What communities do you like? I am looking for more

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •