Wherever I wander I wonder whether I’ll ever find a place to call home…
Drupes have pits contained within a hard shell (I guess called an endocarp?).
Peach pits look like an almond inside of a walnut shell basically. Avocados just have a really large seed in direct contact with the buttery soft mesocarp.
I don’t know who decided to classify gourds, melons, and citrus fruits as berries, but I imagine they had mischief in mind…
It’s not saying that “92% of Canadians are morally good” or even that anyone said “92% of Canadians are morally good.”
It says that "92% of Canadians view other Canadians [i.e., in a general sense] as morally good.
In other words, most Canadians don’t view maple-leaf-maga as indicative of ‘Canadians’ as a whole. And maple-leaf-maga apparently don’t view the people they hate as real Canadians.
If you took the chart as an indicator of objective morality, then yes it invalidates it. But that’s not what the chart is about. The title clearly indicates that it’s a subjective assessment of people’s views.
So Canada ranks as “good,” somewhat because Canadian people are generally decent, but moreso because there’s a common assumption among Canadians that other Canadians are generally decent.
Likewise in India, the chart indicates that among Indians there’s a common conception that Indians are generally morally decent. This subjective perception is obviously layered with cultural interpretations of what constitutes morality.
The actual, objective morality (if such a thing exists) doesn’t factor into it as much as those cultural factors.
There’s also the selection bias to account for. Indian society is far more stratified than Canadian society. Who exactly is responding to the survey, and are they only considering members of their own caste in their response?
I’d say it would have many noteworthy aspects… but those aspects would only be noteworthy for how utter shit they are…
Wab-wab-wab-wab d-d-d-d-drop the bass!
To be honest, I’m surprised it has 7 upvotes and 0 downvotes.
People will gaslight you about your experience not being real, that all your qualms are really just white supremacist dogwhistles or brainwashed into you by manosphere influencers, but ultimately all your problems are imaginary because you’re a privileged white man who’s been handed everything in life and has never had to suffer or struggle to get by in life, and the only reason you haven’t done more with that privilege to simultaneously be successful and liberate everyone beneath you on the oppression scale (without being a white savior, of course) is because you’re a selfish, self-serving, racist, sexist, chauvinist bigot.
The outright dismissal of the challenges you’ve faced with no option for appeal is just an extension of the same “men don’t have feelings” and “be a man, suck it up, pull yourself up by the bootstraps” mentality that’s so prevalent and harmful in society. But it comes from both sides: the side that actually believes it and wants you to conform to toxic, patriarchal standards of masculinity; and the side that only wants to weaponize that structural misandry against you because “you’re a man so you deserve to be scorned,” and they love an easy target to take out their ire on, because someone who was actually born into wealth, status, and privilege is too difficult to tear down so they go for someone more vulnerable like you and me whose maleness and whiteness is undeniable, but whose (lack of) social status, economic class, and the associated privileges get swept under the rug when you’re reduced to biological factors beyond your control.
But if you raise a concern about how you’re being treated they’ll just accuse you of being a white supremacist or a misogynist because they view life as a zero-sum game, and they believe that in order to lift up and liberate/empower marginalized/disenfranchised minorities, they need to tear down individual white men regardless of their actual position on the food chain (starting with the lowest rungs, though, because low-hanging fruit).
And then they’ll tell you that you have it wrong because “social justice isn’t about that!!!” When yes, it shouldn’t be, and it’s not supposed to be. But in practice, that’s how many people treat it, and your response gets categorically invalidated. It’s like you’re being beaten up for something that someone else did, and if you even so much as put your hands up to defend yourself everyone watching calls you a violent asshole and says “Nobody is hitting you!!! And if they are, you deserve it!”
There is no chance of class solidarity when everyone is so focused on external factors and campism. But you’re not even allowed to respect yourself when someone else wants to treat you like a doormat.
Oh, I see. That makes more sense.
Felt like I was reading a journal entry.
A journal would never publish the opinions I stated above. Also I was formulating my language more colloquially than I would have if I was trying to publish.
I’m from Canada. We commodify education but not nearly as much as the US.
The anglosphere needs to stop following the US example, because it’s a death spiral…
All of it. What doesn’t?
If they use standardized/universal parts and let you buy replacement parts for cheap, then how are they supposed to get you to buy a new dryer every ten years?
Think of the shareholders!
I wanted to get into academia for the pursuit of knowledge/love of wisdom and all that jazz. But I noticed some of the same stuff as you.
Curiosity and inquiry were not the main priority. There’s a lot of red tape, faux pas, hoops to jump through, and you end up needing to do a lot of kowtowing, self-aggrandizing, and following the established narrative. And if you didn’t intuitively know the social norms of academic culture, you were basically shunned as a hopelessly backwards outsider.
Part of the problem is the commodification of education (specific to the US, I presume). Grant writing and acquiring funding shouldn’t be an exercise in marketing yourself as a product, but it is. Universities shouldn’t be run like a business, faculty shouldn’t be treated like labor, students shouldn’t be treated like customers, and degrees shouldn’t be treated like products, but they are. It’s a serious problem and it degrades the value of education.
Another part is the gatekeeping in the peer-review system. I understand the desire to keep the nonsense out, and there’s a way to do that without filtering out novel ideas and unpopular opinions. People tend to think that’s an anti-science dogwhistle, but that’s not how I mean it. A truly scientific mindset should keep an open mind about things that are unconfirmed, but a lot of scientific journals commit the fallacy of negating the antecedent: “there is not enough evidence to establish this, so it must not be true.” There’s never enough evidence to establish a new hypothesis at first, but that doesn’t mean we should discourage formulating new hypotheses. A lot of scientific breakthroughs were initially viewed as crackpot theories.
I’m not talking about “do essential oils cure meningitis,” I’m talking about “can a Big Crunch result in a cyclical universe?” Or “Can taichi improve health outcomes by exercising the circulatory, respiratory, endocrine, and nervous systems?”
Stuff that there’s already enough scientific groundwork to demonstrate the validity of, but are still likely to get you dismissed as a crackpot if you bring it up in an academic setting.
There’s also a lot of office politics to navigate. Which is easy if you’re from a traditionally disenfranchised minority group. As much as they’ll argue to the contrary, women, LGBTQ+, and people of color are privileged within the ivory tower of academia. I’ve been to honors conferences where I was only one of a few white dudes, and likely the only one who was hetero, and yet I had to sit through a key note speaker about underrepresentation of minorities in academia. I felt like I was being gaslit.
But if you’re a white man and you try to claim something like “ecosystems deserve recognition of intrinsic value just like humans do,” everyone will jump down your throat as if you’re trying to reduce minorities to the ontological position of animals, rather than trying to raise the environment up ontologically to the position of humanity. As if everything is a zero-sum game. They view everything through the paradigm of capitalistic systems, even when trying to deconstruct them through some lofty armchair exercise in mental masturbation.
But if you try discussing the merits of collaboration towards common goals over self-serving competition, they’ll think you’re trying to take something away from minorities. They think everything is some shaded attempt at a dogwhistle, so you either have to walk on eggshells or just stay silent. Unless you’re mindlessly parroting the established narrative.
And if you’re competing for grants or a research position and you want to study the intersections of social ecology, deep ecology, and the land ethic, they’ll easily take the brown woman who wants to study media depictions over you. Even though the field is saturated with papers on how minorities are depicted in the media, yet hardly anyone writes about social ecology. You really have to stick to the favored topics, and if you diverge at all then you’d better have some serious connections or otherwise be well-established in your field already.
And if you raise the slightest structural critique of academia, everyone thinks you’re some anti-intellectual, anti-science, worm-brained right-winger. Even if your critique is that the structures of academia themselves are anti-intellectual and in some cases anti-science.
Oh but you also have to be careful about mentioning intellectualism, or they might think you’re elitist! God forbid an outsider believes intelligence should get you farther in academia than emotional appeals do…
Because they were originally successful companies that weren’t owned by meta, and meta couldn’t have that so they bought them.
Why this doesn’t violate anti-trust laws is anybody’s guess…
Does that explain the civilian who died in Dubai?
The UK should condemn Israel
Pretty sure they already did
I think he’s talking about strikes on Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.
UK condemned the US/Israeli strikes on Iran.
Top-level comment was framing him as a feminist and had what I assume was a screengrab from his social media picturing an “inspirational” photo of a wheat field at sunrise with a muslim supplication about being sinful and repentant and asking god not to turn his face away like he rightfully does from his other servants.
Tankies hate religion except for when it’s an anti-western theocratic dictator’s religion.
The definition of primitive is literally an early rendition/version of something. It doesn’t mean “unsophisticated.”
If you’re interpreting ‘primitive’ as ‘unsophisticated,’ that’s a you problem, and it makes no sense to criticize others for using the term properly just because you don’t understand it.
That’s not what I was doing. This post is an article from The Guardian, an independent journal, about Iranian student protesters.
But now that we’re clearly arguing in circles, I’m blocking you. Enjoy those rials while they last.
Death to Khamenei. The New Iran will rise from the ashes of the regime.
If it’s seated within a text that’s critical of nazi propaganda and makes the necessary context clear, I agree that it should be available. But that’s different from publishing the book under its own title.
That’s a really convenient way of turning things around to make me sound like a monster for something that I didn’t say.
I never mentioned non-consensual material. In fact, depictions of non-consensual scenes are often used to demonstrate the monstrosity of it. Maya Angelou discusses non-consensual experiences, to call attention to the heinousness.
That’s a red herring though, because I didn’t ask “should non-consensual media be banned?” I asked “Should media that depicts women as gratuitous sex objects be banned?” That type of media wouldn’t bother depicting non-consensual scenes, because the author can easily write consent into it any way he wants. People would be complaining about the sexualized depictions of women.
They even have terms for it. “Written for the male gaze,” “Jezebel,” etc. But how is banning that sort of content any different from banning 50 Shades of Grey or smutty literotica in general?
An apple sounds much less appealing when you describe it as an indecent (achoo) swollen receptacle tissue with a soft mesocarp…