331–340 of 352 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! We've changed the URL to that first link from https://otpok.com/2014/01/03/amusing-ourselves-to-death/ . Edit: err never mind, now I see why you included the archive link. Switched to that.
(2014) should be changed to (2009) too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not perfectly, because your half-joked formula can have implications that are very much not universal. (In fact, it can also mean the opposite of what I wrote. Although, it can have a few interpretations which are interesting and productive beyond its close scope: among them, "discontent reveals flaws in the system".) Whereas (contrary to some immediate interpretations of your formula), the position "candidates t…
I mean, you're still bitching strictly because you didn't win.
I will express it again, more flatly: we require that administrators be decent, and in many parts of the world there exist candidates in office that do not fit requirements for respect.
I cannot properly match the general idea implying the above with your "ain't" statement because it is not clear what you exactly meant; we can only say that "democracy" in the way you seem to present it is not a universal value and that the "win" you mention seems a very childish idea ("win" is a working system, not the chanceful temporary result of a confrontation as if of sporting teams).
And I will add another related point, also in light of the other poster: systems which just substantially resemble confrontations as if of sporting teams are gravely inadequate. (And there exists no "win" there.)
And I will add a further one to try and dissipate any misunderstanding: whether the administration in the territory I happen to be in is or is not the one which I could have judged as that I would have picked from the pool, that remains unsharable information, but it is also irrelevant: inadequate administrators are a transversal presence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the model one has and the terms one uses probably vary from person to person. However, a meaningful exchange of ideas can occur anyway, if we are prepared to hone in on definitions of words, and correct the difference in personal meanings. This requires patience and good will. It is the opposite to making Barnum statements, such you get in politics like: 'this is a good thing' allowing each individual to mislead…
I can only agree!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So then, obviously, you've been personally responsible and tried to replicate all of the studies that led to the conclusion that microplastic concentrations in reservoirs are increasing, as well as the ones that concluded that bioaccumulation of microplastics have deleterious effects on human health, and then got them peer reviewed, right? And you also decided that 'personal responsibility' is actually tacitly accept…
No, I haven't replicated these tests. I'm just not assuming them to be true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Books also build intimate parasocial relationships. People feel a sense of loss when finishing a book.
By definition, you can’t build a parasocial relationship with an object. You could argue about parasocial attachment to characters I guess but even then I’m sceptical. I understand what you mean but parasocial is not the correct way to describe it.
Maybe I should have specified that I meant the characters in a book, I thought that would be clear from the context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, you're still bitching strictly because you didn't win.
Is that supposed to be funny? I will express it again, more flatly: we require that administrators be decent, and in many parts of the world there exist candidates in office that do not fit requirements for respect. I cannot properly match the general idea implying the above with your "ain't" statement because it is not clear what you exactly meant; we can only say that "democracy" in the way you seem to present it i…
Translation: "My guy didn't win so I'm bitching."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that supposed to be funny? I will express it again, more flatly: we require that administrators be decent, and in many parts of the world there exist candidates in office that do not fit requirements for respect. I cannot properly match the general idea implying the above with your "ain't" statement because it is not clear what you exactly meant; we can only say that "democracy" in the way you seem to present it i…
>we require that administrators be decent Translation: "My guy didn't win so I'm bitching."
-- Stating «My guy didn't win» implies there would have been a sought candidate which lost in a competition: that is delirious. We may not even be aware of who political opponents were: there is no "«My guy»".
-- And there can be no confusion of "indecent" with "disliked": scum is scum and there cannot be attempts to cover objective faults with personal taste.
-- The statement (reconstructed) "the losing part rejects the system" is irrelevant: the system is rejected when faulty, regardless of side taking, which may not happen at all.
-- It's not that there "ain't no democracy": it is that "ain't no society", in face of division where scum can be confused for normal candidates. For your information, we had seen societies in which an attempt was made to restrict candidacy to presentable figures - in my lifetime.
You cannot take a picture and make of it a kindergarten sketch depicting something different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>we require that administrators be decent Translation: "My guy didn't win so I'm bitching."
Dalewyn, are you aware you are trolling? Low effort, unmanageable statements, assumptions, insinuations, deafness... -- Stating «My guy didn't win» implies there would have been a sought candidate which lost in a competition: that is delirious. We may not even be aware of who political opponents were: there is no "«My guy»". -- And there can be no confusion of "indecent" with "disliked": scum is scum and there cannot…
Your efforts to exclude candidates along your arbitrary lines and complaining when you don't get your way is a perfect example of "It ain't democracy if you ain't won."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The failure of some grand visions doesn’t doom all future ones. That’s just silly.
Grand vision (or ideology as it’s also called) is a dead end of history - has been tried too many times, always failed spectacularly. Instead we need small incremental lasting change - thinking we can transform life within a generation without repercussions, that’s just silly