@transigence@kbin.social
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

transigence

@[email protected]

Vibin' in my Lost River habitat.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

That's how many is needed for it to stand up and move around.

Whole Foods argues it can ban BLM masks because the Supreme Court let a Christian business owner refuse same-sex couples (fortune.com)

Amazon.com’s Whole Foods Market doesn’t want to be forced to let workers wear “Black Lives Matter” masks and is pointing to the recent US Supreme Court ruling permitting a business owner to refuse services to same-sex couples to get federal regulators to back off....

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Obviously, no business wants to be associated with BLM any more than they want to be associated with the KKK. Every company I've ever worked for has had dress codes that prohibited divisive political slogans and offensive language.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Removing the mod is imposing a political viewpoint, and it's also completely performative. Why should NexusMods care if the mod exists? Everybody mods their games at their own consent.

No non-conforming people were protected by this move.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

He won't be showing up to any more parties, either.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Can prospective developers use engines like Id Tech 3 or Unreal 2 commercially without paying?

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

A "capitalist" is just a socialist's boogeyman.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

A "capitalist," according to socialists, esp. Marxists, is someone who engages in anticompetitive behavior, insider trading, protection racketeering, bribery, and all manner of dubious and criminal behavior.
Someone who just believes that people should be able to trade freely, associate freely, and keep the vast majority of what they have earned or traded for fairly are routinely called capitalists by socialists and communists to shame them for being successful.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Right, that's the definition in the book, but in practice, for what you find in the comments sections, my description is a better fit.
If people can't "own the means of production (which, by the way, every single person does)," then they are not free to associate or trade freely. Where people can associate freely, trade freely, and own property, private businesses get started. Outlawing business necessitates interfering with people's aforementioned freedoms.
Also, "kulaks" were a thing. If a farmer was prosperous, he was taken to the cleaners, sometimes killed, and his property taken from him. Communists reek of envy.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Also, "the top 1%" doesn't do nothing. They govern and regulate the business, which is something that has to be done. They take all of the risk. You might like to socialize gains, but you don't want any part of the losses, do you? Businesses take the majority of the gains, but suffer all of the losses.
And no, making something does not confer ownership. If I hire you to mow my lawn, you do not then own my lawn, or my lawnmower, or the dirt. You own the consideration I paid to you to mow my lawn. Same with anything else.
If a business has parts and makes them into products, and a worker takes the parts which are not his and makes a product, that product doesn't magically become his because he put it together. The paycheck becomes his.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Does Windows still use GDI? Looks like GDI took a shit.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Is that ChromeOS? I don't recognized the windowing system.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Fixing and maintaining a linux box is good exercise. Ubuntu has been sucking, though. I've been on a straight Debian for about six months now.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Computer vision was just popping off five years after that, so I would say that it is prescient.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Or because they got bigger than they can currently support and they don't want to lay off their employees.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

My own Git server.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

You can host your own Git server.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

means well-supplied and ready to go on a moment's notice

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

As does "well-regulated," especially at the time when that amendment was drafted.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Low-effort and incorrect.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Let me try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it's ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn't written to restrict the rights of the people.
The prefatory clause is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...," which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you're blue in the face about how "well regulated militia" was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it's not part of the operative clause.
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It's hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don't want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it's intuitive.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it's just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn't dangerous is mental illness.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

I've seen dictionary arguers do this all the time. You say that a word means one thing, and they say, "No, it doesn't." Then they cite a dictionary which provides a few definitions, one of which is in the sense that the subject was using it, and they point to the existence of literally any other definition as evidence that "it does not mean that."

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

I didn't say it was "empty words," I said it was immaterial, as in, from a legal standpoint.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

What you're describing isn't "theists," but fundamentalists. Plenty of theists don't talk to the dead, know that Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and modern astronomy would look quite different were it not for the catholic church.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

It was actually saying that "theists" think that scientists can't appreciate beauty, whether that was intentional or not.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

So it's reasonable to think that if your driver is a male, you will be harassed (and that if your driver is a female, you will not)? That doesn't enable misandric bigotry in any way whatsoever. I mean, everybody knows that men are the ones who cause problems and women are the ones who suffer them.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

What "playing field" are you talking about, what is unequal, and what does this do to supposedly equalize this... playing field?

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Why not just not allow men to be drivers? Problem solved, equity maximized.
Neither "equality" nor "equity" involve any amount of equality, equity, fairness, nor justice of any kind. They're all hot garbage.
What people need is freedom and liberty maximized, and artificial barriers removed. And don't expect equal outcomes.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Right. And don't forget to address the issue of them all being differently situated as a starting condition. You'll have to kneecap some and put others on wheels.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Realistically it would be a "no whites" option, since whites are the ones who are racist by definition and it's impossible to be racist against whites, and also because historically all whites were slave owners (and nobody else was). To let a white person drive a person of color to their destination would be a power differential you couldn't trust a colorless person with.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

The Nazi isn't the audience.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Fearing for your safety from relational aggression from women is completely rational. Women are just as aggressive as men — it just takes a different form.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

There is no systemic oppression of women and there never has been.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

I guess I just have a problem with your phrasing. You make it sound like if we worked to increase the number of sexual assaults that happen to men by women, this would be a solution to the problem.

A "playing field" is an analogy for a field of opportunities, like the job market or access to services like education.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Not at all. I'm as serious as a heart attack. We've had three generations of people subjected to intense radicalization by feminists who have been in power and influence, particularly over children, for over a century, which is why everybody just accepts it as gospel and few have questioned it for decades.

But the truth is we have been heavily propagandized for generations by feminists who take advantage of the male and societal instinct to protect women in order to inject their doctrine into society and law without proper scrutiny.

People think feminists are the plucky underdogs who popped up in the '60s and finally convinced men to "share some of the power" that only men ever had, but the truth is that feminists (whether in that name) have been around at least since the 1850s and have been spreading radical lies about men and society since then. You can read the "Declaration of Sentiments" of Seneca Falls in, something like 1857 and the criticism of E. Belford Bax if you want to dive further into it. You can also read the crazy blatherings of Charles Fourier, who actually coined the term "feminism." He posited that a society should be judged according to how it treats its women.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Let me be very clear here:
There is nothing that comes from the doctrine of feminism that is true or grounded in reality. All of it is false, from the wage gap to its stupid cousin the pink tax, supposed rape culture, the glass ceiling, and toxic masculinity — all of it. Every single item in the feminist list of grievances is false. It's completely ungrounded in reality. It's nothing but a fabrication from whole cloth spun from a place of hatred towards men and disdain and jealousy of normal women who are living their best lives.
But the biggest lie — the foundational lie that underpins every other lie and the entirety of the feminism movement is their "Patriarchy Theory," so it is sometimes called. (It's not a threory, it's just completely untested conjecture.) This is the idea that men have organized society (alone) to benefit themselves, and themselves alone, at the expense of the women in their own society. This abominable lie is the common thread that runs through every wave and variant of feminism. It is not true, and it has never been true. It has never been demonstrated, and nobody who purports it has ever bothered to subject it to nullification. It has merely been granted axiomatically.
None of the feminist doctrine has ever been supported by any real academia, but instead is supported by a beachhead of nearly-unassailable woozles in their own self-referential journals and articles. But we have gone for so long without challenging it because it's perceived to be in the interest of women (although, ultimately, it is not). In actuality, it comes at the expense of all of society and amounts to nothing but a misanthropic power- and money-grab.

Women have never, ever, not once been oppressed by the men in their own society. This lie, and every other one that derives from it, amounts to the entirety of feminist doctrine. It doesn't hold up to even casual scrutiny, much less any real fact-checking or consideration of historical context.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

3-5 megatons? You don't get blasts like that from a ruptured steam vessel. That takes a nuclear explosion. You are aware that not only was Chernobyl not a nuclear explosion, there is nothing in any nuclear power plant anywhere even capable of creating a nuclear explosion of any magnitude, right?

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

The history of nuclear power could have had 10 Chernobyls and no improvements in reactor design, and it would still be a better, safer source of power than the mix we're using now. The amount of death from nuclear power is unbelievably low. It's infinitessimal compared to other sources, on a per-joule basis. It's even lower than solar power, somehow.

And why in the world would NPPs becoming safer (which, relative to Chernobyl, they already are) not make it an obvious solution? And what solution do you have that's better than NPPs, coal, and gas that would be suitable for base load power? And don't you dare say "wind" or "solar," because those are not dispatchable sources of power.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Oh, have you already resorted to an internet background check?
A nuclear power plant has nothing capable of creating a nuclear explosion. Nuclear fuel is not capable of going super-critical. You cannot put it into any configuration in which this is the case. No nuclear power plant has ever had a super-criticality event and no nuclear power plant has ever been capable of even producing one.
https://science.fusion4freedom.com/why-a-nuclear-reactor-cannot-explode-like-an-atom-bomb/
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/710668/why-is-it-impossible-for-the-reactor-of-the-nuclear-power-plant-to-turn-into-an

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

I did no such thing. Bold of you to assume every female surgeon has been sexually assaulted in an OR during an operation.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

I'm sure it happens, in some times, and in some places. I just don't buy the notions that:

  1. It ever happens in an OR, and;
  2. It happens a lot, and;
  3. It happens during an operation.
transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

I don't think they wouldn't lie if they weren't anonymous. Liars will put their names on their lies, and these people are kooky feminist ideologues. They'll literally say anything. There's no limit to how unplausible their claims can be, while they look you in the eyes with a straight face and expect you to believe it. They are mental.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

I think there's a difference here where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, and where there is not. Out on the sidewalk, you don't have one. Selling someone's CC is a violation of contract law because you do have an expectation of privacy there. So, we have to be very clear, what kind of data are we talking about? "Sharon Thomas visited this site, looked at these items, spent 14.2 seconds looking at that item, then clicked on this link," I think, is not something you can expect privacy from.
However, there are some things I do think you have an expectation of privacy from, which is the collation and sale of personal information that the customer enters into the site for the purposes of business with that site, like the collation names with addresses, driver's license numbers, social security numbers (or whatever local equivalents), etc. Another thing is that, and I don't know if I'm 100% right here, but I believe that when you visit a site, even by typing an address into the address bar, the site you're visiting is told, by your browser, what site you're coming from. That doesn't make sense to me, and that's not a thing that should exist.

Nonetheless, I don't think the GDPR is a good fit for addressing any of these issues.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Thank you for making this distinction. I've never heard this before. Especially not thousands of times by the most socially well-adjusted people on the planet.

transigence,
@transigence@kbin.social avatar

Pressing X.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines
    •