griffinmmahon

Sure, agreed! But it's not like the two parties are all that different in that they both act on the interests of wealthy elites.

They're also called the Republicans.

Nah, it does preclude that possibility, because some of the suffering of those individual humans is entirely unnecessary.

Anecdotal and unrelated.

Yeah the whole "globalist" thing is stupid to me. There are better ways to articulate the position that don't originate from conspiracy theorists.

Yeah, I'm interested in the original user's self-identification as someone who mistrusts globalists. Thank you for the summary!

Yes, exactly! None of these things are mutually exclusive.

Decrying liberal/conservative media bias while being stuck within that same spectrum is an entirely impotent critique to me if you don't understand the structural incentives that make all media outlets opposed to reporting truth/facts to the public (cf. *Manufacturing Consent).

Sure, we're agreeing. I just take issue with the idea that it is possible to do an injustice against the dead over word choice. I probably jumped too quick, though, and maybe shouldn't have commented. Sorry if any of this came off as combative!

I basically do not take issue with your dissection of terms here.

However I have seen another bit of your logic elsewhere and strongly disagree with it: the idea that mislabelling (or even correctly labelling) something "does an injustice" or "is a disservice" or "would be offensive to" people who died in the past at the hands of someone/something. We only have an obligation to make the lives of current and future people better: people who have died because of hatred would surely appreciate us doing our best to combat hatred in the modern world.

And there's also the possibility that the NYT et al have 1) done bad things in the past but 2) have also done good things For example, Noam Chomsky rightfully called the NYT "a bad paper" but he still read it every morning because it's one of the best sources of what's going on.

A question only intended as such: could you explain what you mean by the word "globalists"? Thanks!

e: I should clarify that I'm not being sarcastic or snarky and am genuinely interested in what "globalists" means -- I've never read it or used it, I am hesitant to look it up because I feel it might not get a fair shake in whatever I read, and was wondering how this user uses it.

Yeah "left" is not the way I would describe papers that dishonestly hyped the invasion of Iraq etc. For readers-by: try Jacobin or Dissent

Re-fuckin-tweet. It's a good thing that the world is different from how it used to be -- the past was full of injustices and suffering. Nostalgia for nostalgia's sake is poison.

Your comment has me fondly remembering a backpacking trip in Wyoming. We'd go to sleep around 8 or 9 since it would get dark before then and wake up at about 7, and the sleep was indeed the best of my life, like coming out of a coma.

I do not disagree!

Didn't know about this, thanks for the info!

As far as I can tell, there's no new "technology" in whatever product Palantir offers (I have briefly used it before?). It seems to me that it's just a program for data visualization, which given that the government is one of their customers, is quite the grifting of the public.

This position though is pretty much contingent on nearly every person making nearly every environmentally-friendly decision then, no?

>I haven't significantly changed my behavior and consumption patterns

You shouldn't be ashamed about this per se, because the type of action that will combat climate change is action by governments and corporations. An Inconvenient Truth made everyone think that small personal decisions are the way toward a greener future (think changing your lightbulb), but they aren't.

Check out r/bodyweightfitness, I'm sure they have a bunch of good tutorials.

The rise in popularity of "functional fitness" and its accompanying ideas about mobility and flexibility have made it seem like everyone should be a contortionist, but if you're only an amateur athlete, the mobility you should focus on is just what's necessary for your sport.

Like the paragraph you cited says, extra flexibility is sometimes a bad thing. Weighted mobility, once you can achieve the positions you need to, is a better progression than trying to increase ROM.

Or more recently Mark Fisher, who at least in one essay (to be honest, I've only read this so far but just bought another book; I'm much more familiar with DFW and agree with your analysis) suggests that depression is societal (https://theoccupiedtimes.org/?p=12841) and who killed himself.

Thank you for fighting the good fight in explaining this concept.

Žižek on green consumerism is quite good as well, I find myself constantly thinking of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g.

Hm. I've heard lots of different angles on not eating fruit but never got these numbers. Thanks!

OJ is just sugar water though, the value of fruit is (I think) the whole fruit.

>shutting people up that they don't agree with

Yes, but people are allowed to do that. I don't think "free speech" means what you think it means. It's a comforting idea that other people are too immature/emotional/dumb to consciously think about an opposing belief, but that wasn't the case here. There's no obligation to hear out a side that would do you harm given the choice. w/r/t letting people say unpopular things, the university did decide to host him in the first place, which represents the university's commitment to some form of free speech. Individual people should not be subject to scrutiny for protesting something they disagree with.

>in order to curtail other's free speech ... by calling it protesting

It's not about free speech. He incites harassment.

Consider that your notion of violence relates that word and the destruction of property, which is not living matter.