We try not to reach with those numbers because the we don't know whether spaghetti code will overflow if we somehow hit negatives. A few million settlers are bad enough, who's going to deal with septillions of them?
Seriously, we've got neither Stalin nor Mao to kill gojillions by eating their grain or killing birds. We can't mess up like this.
You made sure people know what that is, right? I'm picturing the misunderstanding right now, they think you mean you're an ace pilot, suddenly they imagine you two having become soulmates when they hear the news that you got into a dogfight and didn't make it. They're already devastated, so they cut their losses and leave.
That's Michelle Care isn't she?
I'd much rather be slaughtered than fucked by Peter Singer, thank you very much.
Alright, maybe the good people of hexbear can help me with this.
I've been reading/hearing for years how people consuming shit media won't listen to the critics and just enjoy it. Scathing yet honest criticism will come with the notion that the thing isn't worth consuming, implicit or explicit. Are there really people going above and beyond to try to make people feel bad for the media they consume?
You know, for a man that's so well read I have a feeling he hasn't really touched much ex-muslim writings. That said I wouldn't have written a word had I not seen so many defending him.
I'm not being an edgy anti-theist. I know that any attempt to actively dissuade people of their religion is futile at best and often malicious. The issue is that he's precribing something that's not possible to reasonably back up.
If his analysis is that Islam is more conducive to a liberation struggle, he should say so. It'd be easy to debunk mind you; liberation struggles, marxist and non-marxist, happen all over the world. West Asia isn't close to being unique in this regard. Desire for liberty is quite inherent to all peoples of the world and fighting against subjugation doesn't become something else done for different reasons because the people doing the fighting are attributing their struggle to something else.
I feel this might not be quite clear, so I'll try to elaborate. A people may struggle and they may attribute their will to fight to their God, their patriotism, or something else they believe in. This doesn't make it true. If it were, we'd see a clear distinction between peoples of different religions or cultures, yet we don't. People struggle whether they believe in Allah, Buddha or Wakan Tanka. What we do see is that people in similar material conditions react in similar ways. A people under siege, kicked from their homes, treated with disdain and contempt will fight back. Many, of different cultures and religions have. From this it should be easy to conclude that the initial claim would be chauvinistic, even if one isn't impuning other beliefs.
I'm thinking how one would write that and make those recommendations without a hint of chauvinism, I can't really think of a way. He recommends books quite similar to books my haji grandfather gave me to read. He thought Islam was correct and that by reading, I'd come to the same conclusions and my faith would be stronger for it. It backfired spectacularly, but that's not my point. He wasn't trying to proselytise, in his mind he was doing no more than give a kid the tools he needed to find the truth. His best intentions didn't make him less chauvinistic, and they wouldn't Hakim. It doesn't make them bad people, but it means their approach doesn't have a sound material basis.
Edit: I deleted the last part because it wasn't helpful. I don't begrudge people fighting for their lives their religion, if that's what gets them through, all the power to them. All I'm saying is that these people aren't holding onto religion because it gives them their will, it gives them their will because they're believers holding onto it. Reading the life of the Prophet doesn't inform the readers as would the words of Ho Chi Minh or the history of Palestine, which is why I took issue with the post and its defenders.
I feel like an old man, I'm still having trouble with this website, pressing reply insread of edit.
Used to be that wight men had passion and righeous fury, women were hysterical and POC were plain mad. Now that wight women have been well co-opted to the mainstream, it's gauche to call them hysterical.
TBF LARPing a reasonable person with functioning faculties to analyse is quite popular among crackkkers. Their rudimentary worldview contradicts with reality but they'll never know unless they check, and they rarely do.
Holy hell, you're right! I was thinking "Level 1" and "closer analysis" were contradictory, but they literally mean a cursory glance of the facts from the western perspective disagrees with hexbear.
Also "closer analysis" is some real "Does the pope shit in the woods" stuff.
By not voting for B, they have inadvertently weakened B's position, which is called a Spoiler Effect: Because they ony have a single vote, any votes not put toward the two most popular candidates end up wasted, as the actually significant race happens between those two.
None of which is actually true.
Not voting isn't supporting whatever candidate for the same reason piracy isn't stealing: The intersection of people who'd have bought it if they couldn't pirate is never everyone and there's a myriad factors involved. Piracy can be reduced by localised pricing and easier access, whereas hunting down pirates doesn't help. Same approach works in politics.
People aren't ideological dots on the plane of ideologies, with a probability distribution in a circle around that point. Politics as a whole can't be described by a set of coordinates. If you've got a large wheel that turns only in one direction, in the long run the torque you apply won't make a difference, you can't revert it.
More inportant than these two combined is that it's all perceptions. On the base level it's not a given that the 2nd place was truly closer to winning than the 3rd. It is in the case of the US president, but not on the smaller, more local scale. Nobody's vote is actually locked in and even the voters of the top 2 choices are rarely as inflexible as they're portrayed. The deeper issue of perception is that the media landscape determines how people think. As near as 4 years ago I wouldn't have goven much credit to this myself, but the treatment of Sanders and Corbyn show beyond doubt that sustained media campaigns still work wonders and that a lot of assumptions are just horseshit. Consider, Bernie Sanders is possibly the only presidential hopeful in the US who won the first 3 states and still wasn't made candidate. The media always talks about momentum, but momentum isn't a point boost from election results, it's coverage after the fact. Winning Nevada by a landslide means fuckall if the media that's nominally friendly can't shut up about how some old sellout is going to support your corpse of an opponent.
That's the rule of capital, a fact that's unprofitable need not be true, until it becomes profitable.
Beg your pardon?