I mean it sucks, but it kinda makes sense in a twisted way that the cis guys who embraced gender-bending culture in order to be predatory are now worried that that's all the transgender movement is. Its all projection, like the homophobic in the closey religious types that turn out to be massive deviants.

I feel like this is probably due to the steamdeck and so much steamos functionality requiring steam to be running.

I think its kind of reductive to claim that all the billionaire fascists are merely racists. I mean sure, racism plays a part, and they definitely are racists, and eugenicists, but fascism primarily is about power and control, and those that have that power now and want more of it arent motivated solely by racism. The reason fascists dislike minorities of all kinds, not only racial minorities but also sexual and religious ones, is because they threaten the status quo and exist outside of the fascists desired hierarchy, and because its useful for controlling a population to give them something 'other' to hate and fight against, aside from the fascist puppetmasters pulling their strings. Race is definitely involvex, but for the billionaires leading the charge, the fascist push is avoht money and power and control.

That cost seems incredibly high, how did you calculate that? Also what are you paying for a loaf of bread? Granted cheese is expensive so depending on how much mozarella you're factoring in that could play a part, but im still curious about your numbers.

[-] emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 2 weeks ago

"Im going to be barely better than the alternative and people will literally worship me for it. Also even though i support killing children, trump would kill more probably. Vote blue!"

Disclaimer because lemmy users are becoming more like redditors everyday:

yes trump sucks. Yes vote kamala if youre in a swing state. No, dont attack every person who points out the massive flaws in your democratic system or the "democrat" party. Because they fucking suck also. Just slightly less.

Okay but words are not math. Language exists solely for the purpose of communicating ideas, and if you understand the idea that someone is trying to convey and that idea is not false, but their word choice is inaccurate then you most definitely are just nit-picking, and its not in search of some greater 'truth' because the actual truth of the conversation is what they were intending. I feel like you're conflating truth with accuracy. Misusing the word animal when you mean mammal is not false in the same way as saying the sky is green or the covid vaccine gives you aids. Words can also have multiple meanings, which lends itself to more than one truth. Theres the scientific definition, and as i mentioned, the colloquial usage. So if a majority of the population understands a word to mean one thing in one context and another thing in a different context, and you willfully ignore that societal understanding in favor of 'scientific validation', then you are again ignoring a form of truth.

[-] emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Sure in some cases there can be an objective truth probably, although i doubt any of us is as close to it as some people seem to enjoy thinking they are. But i think what you're missing (possibly intentionally) about my point is that if you know what someone meant then they achieved the objective of communicating, and by choosing to ignore what they meant and instead focus on what they incorrectly said then i feel like you're consciously choosing to move the conversation away from 'truth' and toward 'correctness' out of some need to feel superior. There is a time and place to correct people, but lots of people (and you may or may not be one of them) seem incapable of distinguishing when it is not the right time or place.

Or they don't care because they're using it in a colloquial sense and 90+% of people they talk to would understand their intended usage, so they resent being lectured on semantics rather than responding to the meaning behind their words.

[-] emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 2 weeks ago

This is naive. Democrats have been stringing you along, decade after decade saying one thing and doing another, using whatever excuse they have available, and you seriously think they're just waiting for the perfect time to unleash all this progressive legislation? Theyll just keep moving the goalposts as long as they have a willing voter base who never questions them because theyre better (undeniably true but still not good enough) than the evil republicans. They set up the opposition as the ultimate boogeyman so you'll never question their half-measures. You should demand more when you have the power and leverage.

[-] emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de 77 points 2 weeks ago

I mean if i was kyle gass id tell jack black to go fuck himself. He made a big fit over a simple joke when his whole shtick(before being a literal clown for Disney(tm)) was being an 'edgy' comedian who writes songs that are supposed to be offensive.

24
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de to c/daystrominstitute@startrek.website

So in this episode they go into a cave, and can read some sort of energy field, as well as Troi having a sense that there are lifeforms present. Geordie explains that the people must be displaced in time, but only by a few milliseconds. If that's true, how is there not overlap? Say the people are a few milliseconds ahead of the enterprise when they arrive, shouldn't they appear a few milliseconds later, as they still would have had to be 'present' during that time? I don't understand how they would be consistently invisible if time is a dimension like space that can be traveled through. Some past (or future) version of them would be present regardless of the desynchronization would they not?

Please if anyone could help me understand or shed some light on this I'd appreciate it.

view more: next ›

emeralddawn45

joined 1 year ago