• 0 posts
  • 13 comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 17th, 2023
  • So if someone has a large platform, they shouldn’t advocate for ending a genocide?

    Donald Trump was someone people knew from entertainment. The entertainment TV show he was on made people think he was a good businessman or whatever. Do you think Trump successfully converting his notoriety in entertainment into political power was a good thing?

    I remember Gina Corano making comments relating the treatment of conservatives to genocide. Do you think she was correct for making comments she felt was related to a genocide? She was fired for those comments, was that wrong?

    Personally I just don’t want to be thinking about the batshit things Gina Corano said when I’m trying to watch Star Wars. She has a right to say what she wants, but it negatively impacted her ability to entertain me.

    So much music is deeply political.

    Nah, pretty sure most music is about fucking. Either you haven’t listened to a lot of music, or more likely, are being intellectually dishonest in an effort to impress your peers in your little hate group.

    Speaking of MAGA, this is as ridiculous as boycotting Bud Lite for making a novelty can with a trans person on it one time. Same as them, you’ve been directed by social media to hate something for stupid reasons and so you have to fall in line because of social pressures. You’re the exact same kind of person as the MAGA people, just the algorithms show you a different set of hate mongers that have different targets for you to hate.

    Personally I don’t care about what Roger Waters, Ed Sheeran, or Macklemore think about complex geopolitical issues. Political discussion shouldn’t be dominated by non-serious people in the entertainment industry. Roger Waters and Donald Trump are in alignment on Russia, and I think they are both idiots. They’re entertainment people, it’s fine for them to be idiots… unless they start using their fame to push their ignorant takes on how the world is. Crossing that line from entertainment fame into politics creates a whole lot of problems.

  • When I was a kid we found some berries in a field, but we didn’t know if they were safe to eat. So we asked our parents, they didn’t know either, they told us to ask our great-grandmother since she was super old she might know what the berries were.

    So we took the berries to grandma and she looked at them for a second and then immediately ate the all of them.

    “So… they’re safe to eat?”

    “Come back tomorrow, if I’m still alive they are safe to eat”

    She reasoned that she was old and if the berries killed her it wouldn’t be a big deal. But if one of us kids died it would be a huge tragedy.

    So from that experience, I’m guessing it wasn’t children that tested if things were safe to eat it was probably the elderly.

  • Just the sentence “Rock legend slams Ed Sheeran” I immediately thought “let me guess, is it Roger Waters?”

    Yup. Roger Waters. He’s an extreme tankie that thinks Russia was in the right in invading Ukraine.

    Of course that whack job would feel the need to weigh in.

    I wish Roger Waters was more like Ed Sheeran and tried to stay out of political discussions they don’t know much about. Many musicians live completely different lifestyle than the rest of us and may not be the best moral arbitrators or be the best at doing analysis of geopolitics.

    But since we’re on the dumbest timeline, maybe Macklemore needs to weigh in on what he thinks of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

    What does Beyonce think about Brexit? Does Taylor Swift have a position on Taiwan independence? These are important things to know when you’re listening to fucking music I guess.

  • LOL. Yeah the Romans were known for never being corrupt and they would never ever be skimming some tax revenue! Therefore those tax numbers were 100% accurate all of the time.

    And Julius Caesar defeated one zillion Gauls at the Battle of Alesia. He would never exaggerate, because people cared a lot about whether the things they were writing were true.

    I think I’ll go on thinking that primary sources are all inherently flawed. The Viking sagas talk about their colony in Vinland along with fighting sea serpents. They’re mostly bullshit, but it’s the only written record of Vinland which is supported by archaeological evidence. Do you discard everything in the sagas because there’s some mythological stuff in them? Do you inherently trust Roman records about taxes because they they’re dry and boring?

    Or maybe historians are correct to consider the context of any work written (and that includes religious texts) alongside archaeological evidence? Also consider that for most of history most people couldn’t read or write. There’s always oral history that’s written down centuries later. Many things were never written down, and many things that were written down were destroyed. We have a limited amount of information from historical texts and given how uncommon literacy was in past, it’s usually written by either a wealthy person, someone employed by a wealthy person, or a priest. It’s always going to be an incomplete picture, and it all has a lot of bullshit in it.

  • There was no such thing as academic tenure in those times and every historian depended on having a patron, usually a wealthy Senator. They probably cared more about keeping their patron happy than whether what they wrote was true or not.

    I mean were you there? How do you know the intentions of the people writing things down back then?

  • Unfortunately, no one can be told what a file is. You have to see it for yourself.

    This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the file system goes.

  • What is it you think I forgot? No one’s forgetting how there’s people spending a lot of time trying to convince everyone that anything that recognizes the existence of Jews should be labelled “zionists” and be a target of hatred.

    I also haven’t forgotten then general pattern of posts on “Lemmy Shitpost”. One day Gal Gadot is the target of your two minutes hate, next day it’s this guy I never even heard of before.

    Also I haven’t forgotten that this isn’t the first time in history people have acted this way. Not everything is about comforting you by making you feel like no one notices this pattern of behaviour.

  • Yeah I know there’s some really deranged people on the internet.

    It’s a bizarre thing when people think that proving the existence of a narrative is the same thing as something being true.

    Apparently there’s a synagogue in it so some people are upset by that. You’ll of course claim that Zionism is not the same as antisemitism, while also spending a lot of time reading a lot of articles that tell you to hate a video game because it shows a synagogue in it.