Stoneykins [any]

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

help-circle


  • I think it would depend on the individual. Some would admit it, once they see the whole globe through that glass it would be like trying to say apples don’t exist in response to someone handing you an apple. Their senses would override the belief. They might not be very thrilled to admit it…

    Then there would be the people that are fanatics about it… They would probably get hysterical, or check out mentally, or get violent, or some other sort of emotional break. I would also guess these people would be unwilling to go into space in the first place.



  • Switching to propane is one safer alternative that is being recommended for people with natural gas lines to their houses, it is less leaky and cleaner burning than the methane stuff. Propane won’t be banned, but it will become more expensive as supplies dwindle.

    If you have an air conditioner you already have a heat pump, it just needs to be one that can alternate directions between heating and cooling. Also, backup emergency heat would not need to be nearly as extensive as a full house propane furnace. Or, you could just use a propane emergency generator instead and keep using the heat pump. Propane can be stored long term much more easily than alternatives like gasoline, and while it can be pricier, just having enough for emergencies is not a great cost.





  • Hmm… An argument could possibly be made that that was some sort of racism, but it probably would be subconscious, unintentional, “supporting the system” kindof racism. In my experience, trying to call that out as racism directly just gets people all worked up arguing about what defines racism, and it is better to just try and make direct arguments about the topic at hand than open that can of worms every time.

    Obviously this isn’t a very consistent rule, just a general thing I’ve noticed. Many times calling something out as racism is necessary for the conversation to be productive.


  • Idk what you mean by normal disagreement, but I have no intention of being hostile about this if that is what you mean?

    This is kinda my overall point: worrying too much about the money being used “correctly” or “efficiently” above all else is a misdirection to keep the debate stagnated, and keep the issue of actually making reparations indefinitely in the future. The conversation of how the money can/will/should be spent isn’t a conversation that the countries that got rich off of slavery should be having, it is a discussion that the descendants of slaves should be having. Trying to make the decisions for them is just more of the same fucked up “we should be in charge of them for their own good” mentality.



  • It is so weird to me you can somewhat accurately describe the issues that still exist today related to slavery and then just “but I don’t think we should give em the money because they probably wouldn’t spend it responsibly”. What a wild assumption. Why don’t we let the descendents of slaves have the money and figure out what to do with it instead of taking the attitude of “we know how to spend it better than they do so we should keep it and just fix things ourselves”? Do you really think that they wouldn’t have the desire to invest it in things like education and lifting up their communities?







  • I accept this an argument for the utility of the internet or collective knowledge (whatever you want to call it) as a historical/anthropological/psychological/etc tool, but to use this as an argument against the morality of privacy is a huge stretch.

    It would be hugely beneficial to the field of medicine if we just tested on people for whatever needed researched without concern for their wellbeing or rights, but that doesn’t mean it can be used as an argument against personal wellbeing or personal rights

    But it seems like you mostly argued this point to see if you could, so whatever


  • This is nonsense. They already weren’t making enough money and needed to strike to try and meet their needs.

    And you are implying there is a fair distribution of the revenue earned from popularly pirated media? Bullshit.

    Writers and actors have always received chump change or less, and never has it ever been implied that they recieve any payment based on sales, but rather work done.

    If you find me any company that garuntees that all actors and writers receive fair extra pay based on sales, then I will swear on my life to never pirate anything from them, and buy the content (if it’s something I want).