• 0 Posts
  • 157 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle
  • I worked in a office supplier at one point. People would enter the office, put some documents on the first desk they see and look at the guy sitting there. No hello… No sentence… Nothing… That is usually the point when we knew what was up. The guy would look at the documents and say "you aren’t at the right place. Wrong floor. Wrong door. " They would look at us in shock. Sometimes complain that you couldn’t tell where you are. It was always the same. They wanted to get something from the government. They had an office in the same building. There were multiple big sign. There was literally 2 signs outside telling you which floor. Obviously our office had a sign too. They passed at least 3 signs in an office building while they were looking where to go… People don’t read signs… They just don’t.






  • SpaceX’s reusable rockets is from SpaceX if I understand it correctly but…

    Obviously musk didn’t build the rocket or planned the rocket but that is not the point.

    Nasa had plans for reusable rockets but for the longest time, the financial risk of development was higher than the value of reusable rockets. SpaceX didn’t care about the financial risk because they needed thousands of satellites for the most brain dead idea ever, starlink and because Elon is bad with money (Twitter…)

    So SpaceX was “successful” because they were crazy enough to run 2 extremely dangerous projects.






  • 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.


  • 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.




  • 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.



  • Being against, doesn’t make you hateful anyway.

    I am “against” religion as I think it does more harm than good but I am pro religious freedom for everyone and a peaceful cooperative global society. So I think that makes me hardly hateful towards religions or the believers. Well tbh I have a hard time accepting religious extremist positions in societies, but everything comes with a price… I take religious freedom for everyone if that means someone thinks a book with instructions on how to abort a baby is against abortion and that it should be law.