The dairy company Arla would be in trouble if they had to do this :D
Arla Finland has one of the few most prominent nazis in Finland in their board of directors. There was a bit of a scandal because of this about a year or two ago, but Arla’s Finnish daughter company said “we already know, but he has promised not to be a nazi during working hours, and it’s every employee’s personal choice what they do in their free time.”
And Finland was okay with that (!!)
Guess if I have bought their products even once after that? 🙃
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works
on 22 Mar 20:39
nextcollapse
Win win!
thefluffiest@feddit.nl
on 22 Mar 21:33
nextcollapse
“Nazi lives matter”
LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
on 23 Mar 06:23
nextcollapse
I see this comment a lot on Lemmy and it’s disturbing. I too was perma banned for telling a Nazi to “go to hell”. 10 year old account with no prior bans.
Welcome to the club. 12 year account for me, I told off some mysgonistic redpiller who called another user a slur, I quoted the slur so he couldn’t edit, told him to go fuck himself with a telephone pole, the kind with all the nails from years of posters being posted on it, and then reported him.
Mods banned me for “incivility and using a gendered slur,” took no action on the other user, I appealed it, they acted like pubescent fucksticks, so to keep talking to people I knew in that community I made a new account, then admins perma-IP-banned me for ban evasion.
I’ve been fighting this so long that I’m now instantly shadowbanned across all of youtube, google and reddit every time I make a new account. They’ve gotten very good at silencing users so that their bot-army can simulate human society and adjust our narratives at will. (Yes, google and reddit work together to produce AI bots, they announced it a while back, nobody paid attention.)
melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 06:48
nextcollapse
see, that’s an untrue statement; I’m sure some are in comas or whatever and might need our help. maybe be less ableist next time and you won’t get banned.
I, personally, am willing to help any nazi kill themselves; they only need to ask. because I’m not a bigot.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
on 23 Mar 13:28
collapse
You can’t say that! How am I supposed to kill them myself?
jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
on 22 Mar 21:07
nextcollapse
I’m here to drink milk and kill nazis… and I’m lactose intolerant. >:(
ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world
on 22 Mar 21:13
nextcollapse
Gas the nazis?
fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 22 Mar 21:32
collapse
That’s just inhumane lol.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
on 23 Mar 13:37
collapse
That’s the point. Humane is for humans. Being a Nazi, means you don’t care about human rights.
fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 13:43
collapse
I’m joking. :)
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
on 22 Mar 23:17
collapse
I like soy milk and dead nazis :3
fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 22 Mar 23:24
collapse
Soy is delicious and I don’t know why it’s an insult lol.
MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 02:15
nextcollapse
Because idiots think that eating foods that contain phytoestrogens like soy turn you into a girly man or some shit. The deterioration of education in the US and social media everywhere have ruined us.
Funniest thing is, the same men who use it as an insult, drink beer (Beer stimulates estrogen production). I’ve never seen anyone eat 500g of soy in one sitting. With pints, it’s a different story, however. Oh, the irony.
Try oat milk, at least in coffee. Even people who otherwise have nothing against cow milk tend to say that oat milk is better in coffee than cow milk is. I’ve met only some who think cow milk suits coffee better. In my opinion oat milk is also better in cereals and porridge, but that’s something people often disagree upon :)
MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 18:37
collapse
I accidentally picked up some Ben and Jerry’s oat milk style and it was delicious. I do prefer the regular but I wouldn’t mind getting the oat kind. Surprisingly to me, the oat milk version had slightly more calories.
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
on 23 Mar 04:57
nextcollapse
I learned it’s really depending on the brand. I have tried a couple different ones, and only really like the taste of one
Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 23 Mar 05:26
collapse
Soy milk in coffee is fire!
Plus I won’t be crop-dusting the whole day if I drink it
flora_explora@beehaw.org
on 23 Mar 01:47
nextcollapse
Though the character of Indiana Jones or Harrison Ford as a person aren’t really worth to aspire to. Sure, the nazi punching part is great but being a sexist piece of shit isn’t…
HungryJerboa@lemmy.ca
on 23 Mar 05:36
nextcollapse
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good here
melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 06:46
collapse
okay, so, ford I get, but jones was, for a 1930s guy, slightly above average. today he’s the equivalent of a guy who maybe was into jordan peterson a decade ago but thinks this andrew tate shit is fucked and maybe we should treat women like people in theory, but kind of fucks it on the execution, and doesn’t get mad when you call him out on it, but doesn’t quite fix it either. then goes and takes out his frustration on a nazi’s face.
and I’ll put up with a LOT of misogyny to get some nazis punched.
edit: honestly, shitty incel dudes? you can paper over a lot of being “low value” and “creepy” with a wall full of flayed nazi tattoos. I’m not even straight and I’d consider it with enough of them.
Why do you choose to see Jones in the context of the 1930s? It is a character based on the values of the 80s and onward. On top of being misogynistic, the character of Indiana Jones is also being the white hero playing into many racist tropes. So using Jones as this Nazi fighting hero doesn’t work even on the most basic level. Again, I’m all for punching Nazis, but we should choose better heroes or even better: no heroes at all!
melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 16:20
collapse
I’m pretty sure they were based on books. I could be wrong.
problematic is not the same as nazi. as demonstrated by many of our (great) grandfathers, who killed a whole buncha nazis, and generally believed killing nazis was cool and good, but were still massively racist homophobic transphobic misogynist assholes. again, you can call me whatever slurs you want, as long as you’re shooting nazis in the head while you do.
exedore6@lemmy.sdf.org
on 23 Mar 18:22
nextcollapse
Indiana Jones is an original character from the movies. That said, he’s certainly based on adventure fiction and movies from the 30’s that inspired Spielberg.
Spielberg told Lucas he was interested in making a James Bond film, but Lucas pitched him of an idea “better than James Bond”, outlining the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Well, growing up in Germany with all my grandarents being more on the nazi side of WWII, I feel like the US idea of getting rid of nazis is that you just have to fight them like in WWII. It didn’t work though. German society and politics was still very much made up of nazis afterwards. Sure, they got taken the power to act upon their ideology in the same way as before. What you need is a systemic change where fascist ideas don’t have any space anymore, where emancipatory ideas can grow and where people are liberated in who they are and what they think. But the issue is, misogyny and racism like portrayed by the Indiana Jones movies are strictly opposed to emancipatory struggles. Giving discriminatory ideas like these too much space will again lead to more fascist tendencies. My point is, it isn’t always black and white, nazi or not nazi. I have no idea if my grandparents were all nazis. They were just kids brainwashed into this ideology. My granddad fought in the Wehrmacht against the allies, but he was just 17. It is easy to say “punch nazis” or “kill nazis”. But unless you have a clear cut enemy like in a political party or an opposing army, this gets messy pretty quickly.
melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 24 Mar 18:34
collapse
yeah, you need to kill more of the nazis. you always need to kill more of the nazis. you need to keep killing the nazis until they aren’t nazis anymore.
yes but you can’t allow anyone to be wrong ever
yes, always try for better, but this purity bullshit is not helpful.
clear cut enemy
I dunno, a lot of the nazis around my part of the world are pretty visible. they look like the least fun dudes ever going to a gay leather event, or the obsessively clean cut white guy in a boring shirt. I mean, you won’t get all of them like that, but they do like themselves a uniform, even without an army. like, the burning cross nazis and the swastika nazis and the militia-bro nazis that kind of straddle the line all dress different, but they’re all pretty obvious.
What if they cut the funding so that people spend their time punching other people?
To me, it seems like a Luke and the emperor scene. They want the hate.
Humanities don’t need funding for expensive laboratories. What’s holding back people from making their own college?
melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 06:44
nextcollapse
it seems like that scene from the end of ‘return of the jedi’ where
no. please shut the fuck up. so, first, that’s a pseudophilosophical hollywood bastardization of a misunderstanding of a whole big complex philosophical system (actually a couple sorta related ones that were just sorta lumped together, because orientalism), via americanized christianity. you understand no part of that. try studying the humanities. please. you need that almost as badly as you need to punch a nazi. feel free to do it while cackling with glee instead of hate, if that’s what floats your boat.
fascism is just hate
no. fascism is fleeing reality for a solipsistic fantasy with a blindness powered by feeling persecuted and the thrill of victory. there’s a reason nazis like cocaine and meth so much; it’s basically the healthier version of what they believe in chemical form. but it’s more than that, because they have to flatten the territory to match their incredibly shitty map.
again; please study the humanities. or at least the places where they meet up with STEM and the sex parties get real weird. as soon as you’re done punching nazis. which, again, really really desperately needs doing. and I say punch, but I don’t actually super care if you punch any nazis, I don’t think punching nazis will fix anything.
punching, in this text, is a metaphor for shooting.
My point is not that fascism is just hate. I am sure you understood it though because you made your position clear.
Still I am intrigued to read more about your theories. That STEM and humanities meetup or the complex philosophical system that I don’t understand, could you give me a hint on where to start digging?
melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 16:12
collapse
I’m kind of afraid to tell you because you’ll think you understand what the hell you’re talking about after a one hour documentary, like you thought you understood morality generally after the six hours of watching space wizards swing laser swords in each other’s general direction, but the dharmic religions, fuzzy taoism (that’s a whole thing) and bushido-which is mostly separate and kinda based on one guy who was as good at murder as he was bad at skin care. which I think makes me reverse miyamoto musashi.
and there are all sorts of places where they meet. my fav example of it is the old command and control/systems/cybernetics theory, where you had margaret mead(big 20th cultural anthropologist) and john von neumann(pure math guy) at the same conference. you get some in psychopharmacology but we don’t really study that at all scientifically so there’s not a lot there.
again, you don’t have any grasp on what you’re talking about for the first twenty hours. i promise. and if you think you have it figured out at 20 hours, you’re still probably wrong. there are monks that dedicate their lives to understanding this shit. you do not.
if you want the more western friendly version of bhuddism, try neitzsche, but he was deliberately abstruse specifically so dumb fucks wouldn’t think they understood his shit and misconstrue what he was saying. it didn’t work, but it did create a high barrier to entry. maybe that would be a good place to start.
Thanks a lot. By chance, do you know a lemmy channel where content in that area is posted?
melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 16:58
collapse
please don’t try to learn this on social media. read an actual long-form book. you will not understand this based on social media interactions; I promise you. social media is not for learning beyond the most shallow surface information. it’s for light dopamine release and doom scrolling while you get your mind shredded by influence ops from all (but mostly fasch) directions and indulge your worst mental illnesses.
Almost funny that you suggest him while he was instrumentalized by the fascists as a fascist.
It’s still strange that you stress punching nazis while you have a deeper understanding of their mentality. Don’t people fall back to group strength when they feel vulnerable themselves? Punching Nazis will confirm that vulnerability.
melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 17:40
collapse
he was instrumentalized by nazis because he used one word they liked, and had vibes they wanted to appropriate, and knew their people wouldn’t actually read it-except his sister/editor, who absolutely became a nazi a couple decades after his death, as soon as that was a thing that you could be. he actually explicitly dismissed the underlying (and extremely silly) basis of the master race thing in one of his books, despite dying in the year 1900. basically saying ‘your virtue comes not from your ancestry, not from the past, but by working your ass off to build and become more than you were. don’t be a little bitch who hides in other peoples accomplishments, real or imagined.’ the phrasing in the translation I read was something like ‘we are the hyperboreans, you and I, reader, who endeavor to somethingorother’ and it would take so much education on popular batshit 19th century estoteric racist cope to explain that one line to you, like one of those weird references in a jane austen novel that you need to either be of the time or a historian or a complete no-life nerd to get, and it’s absolutely not worth it unless you like learning about just how dumb europeans were at the time, but it is also explicitly the basis of the whole ‘aryan master race’ thing, which he explicitly calls bullshit on decades before the concept of fascism, or the war that birthed it, was a glimmer in d’anunzio’s eye, by saying that, basically, you get cool new stuff with hard work and intellectual courage, not jacking off to your grandpa’s high school photos. I think it’s in either “beyond good and evil” or “the antichrist” (neitzsche was not a fan of blood cults) if you want to read more. he WAS a 19th century elitist painfully german asshole, and he does explicitly state that he’s hard to read on purpose. so take what he says with some salt, but there’s good stuff in there.
it’s part of how fascists consume information. you skim and look for the stuff that confirms what you already believe, no matter how much you need to contort cherry pick or cut out whole paragraphs between words or just totally misremember stuff. it’s solipsistic as fuck. by design, if you’ve ever read the shitty book the german government put hitler up in a castle to write.
the punching in this context is a metaphor for shooting, as I said. it’s a whole identity thing about being the winners. I’m personally of the opinion that leaving ugly survivors is better than clean corpses, but I think enough of either would do the trick, and I’m not sure which is easier, being, as I concluded earlier today, reverse miyamoto musashi-bad at violence, great at skin care.
sure, you could try appeasing them, or soft approaches, but they’ve hit a critical mass where, if that were ever possible, it certainly no longer is. they need to be killed. they are solipsists, they have no concept of truth, and they don’t see you as human. they have made themselves into subhuman things that cannot be reasoned with, because they have no more reason. they cannot be negotiated with, because they do not live in the same reality as you. they cannot even be held to a treaty, because they do not have a conception of ‘truth’ or you-as-person; it does not and can not exist in their totalizing world view, which is hostile to contradictory information. it’s kind of terrifying that a person can become so entirely not a person anymore without substantial damage to bodily function. if you want to understand fascism, there are several scholars to start on. arendt is a popular one, if you don’t want to get too commie (and if you do, you already have favorites). if you want something absolutely shitlib friendly, ecco isn’t completely wrong even if he has to avoid describing a lot of it so he doesn’t have to look in any mirrors, but please read more than his 14 points.
So you see fascism as something else than colonialism of white people, as something with a spiritual component.
That solipsism, isn’t that something that also happens in consumerism and nowadays internet entertainment bubbles?
I would like to argue that it’s worthwhile to figure out how to reach people in that mental state because fascism and that state of mind are so ubiquitous that violence cannot win.
Don’t those scholars have any suggestions beyond violence?
melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 18:17
collapse
spiritual
no such thing.
solipsism
movement in that direction is present a lot of places. do you know what the word means?
worth
can’t unmix the drink, babe. sometimes, the best solution is a bullet. once you get past a certain point nazi, you cannot become a human again.
scholars have suggestions beyond violence
yeah, and they all boil down to ‘prevention’ and debates over the amount of violence once you fail to do literally any prevention. once you hit a critical mass of nazis, you gotta kill the nazis. they can’t be cured. my perspective doesn’t precisely match any of them, but once you get to this point, all the options other than violence are already off the table. ask me a decade ago, maybe there’s another way out. but the hour is fucking late, dude.
Not looking it up, it’s a worldview where only the person themselve is valid. Kind of like hedonism but without the joy or like utilitarism but without the concept for people.
they can’t be cured.
I like to think of zombie movies as reflections on that problem. They imprint that there is no healing.
once you get to this point
Is it space or matter? You cannot unmix a drink but you can distill the alcohol and you can reverse a position unless it’s near a black whole.
If we cannot reverse nazis then we lack enough knowledge of the mind. There must be a reason that somebody is rejecting truth, reality and the existance of other people. If we can identify that and show that it is irreversable then punching may be necessary. Otherwise we have found our own way of ignoring humans.
Think Musk and his daughter. It’s all political but at the core it’s hurt feelings.
melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 20:07
collapse
you’re not going to figure it out arguing on social media. there are people I would love to have this argument with, but you aren’t one of them yet.
Where else? Academics won’t risk their career for it. Maybe we meet again one day and figure out a bit. This was very interesting. Thank you for the conversation.
Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works
on 24 Mar 19:55
collapse
Just gonna chime in to say this was a pleasant exchange to read.
melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Mar 17:20
collapse
this is literally a response to someone who said hating nazis was bad because they saw a movie about cyborg ninja alien space wizard samurai with laser swords shooting lightning at each other.
so, like, some compensation is definitely warranted. remains to be seen if I overshot.
Humanities don’t need funding for expensive laboratories
i suppose so as long as all your humanities knowledge is already solved with no need to travel to new places, study new locations, or talk to new people
According to wikipedia, humanities neither include archeology nor sociology:
The humanities include the academic study of philosophy, religion, history, language arts (literature, writing, oratory, rhetoric, poetry, etc.), the performing arts (theater, music, dance, etc.), and the visual arts (painting, sculpture, photography, filmmaking, etc.)
There is no need to travel. The people who research are either there or can be reached via internet.
It’s difficult to not get snarky. You obviously have studied but you argue against my position that humanities with limited funding is possible with the demand that a new university must be able to fund nieche topics. How is that necessary?
because a humanities without “niche topics” is going to cover a very limited subject matter, and in particular, a very certain bias of subject matter! if we design humanities with cost-savings in mind, this is the most inexpensive and readily available culture, language, history: the mainstream, the corporate owned, the majority opinion. funding in humanities expands the horizons and the populace that humanities covers, and without diversity, humanities is not worth teaching
You are arguing about the curriculum of a newly established college as if it were the research focus of the entire humanities.
Diversity doesn’t come from exotic trips but the matetial you cover and the way it is taught and debated. All classic texts are freely available. For centuries that was enough.
There can be trips and such once money is available. For that you need some alumni to get donations. They will not be there if you don’t start teaching which is, for humanities, possible with a minimal budget.
revanthetrueemperor@lemmy.world
on 24 Mar 08:43
collapse
I mean sure sociology may not be classified as a humanities but archeology clearly is: “include the academic study of history”
And sure maybe philosophers don’t need to travel but what do you do when you’re a historian and you need to consult historical records in another country? You are listing"the study of the performing art" how do you think people are studying these without going to the representations?
And i may be biased because it’s what i am currently studying but how are we supposed to study geography without travelling???
It’s sad, but for studies that don’t result in income for the government, they’re just not interested in funding it. You wanna know about philosophy? Tough shit. We need more people for the fulfillment centers, you better get good at holding in your pee.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 24 Mar 19:03
collapse
I have a hard time understanding why we should fund philosophy studies with government money. I would need some convincing.
Feel free to comment here your best arguments for it.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 24 Mar 19:15
collapse
Do you want anyone other than priests advising government officials on ethics? Then you want philosophy majors.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 24 Mar 19:21
collapse
Why would a philosophy major would have better ethics than my, for instance?
Ethics are greatly influenced by so many aspects different to whatever career someone chose to study.
And we could cut the middleman just voting and electing people with the same ethical values as me. It would be a piss off democracy if I chose a representantive who campaigned for painting all buses blue because I share that view just for some unelected person coming to say “no that’s not ethical you shall not do that”.
Ethics of a society emerge from the society, not from a few individuals. Every person have a set of values and in democracies we chose what are the government positions on those values by voting. I think moral lobbing by a few selected individuals would be bad, no matter if priest of philosophy majors.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 24 Mar 19:34
nextcollapse
Applied ethics is not ‘what feels like it would be the most correct thing to do?’, it’s writing professional codes of conduct, establishing criteria for who should be allowed to get an organ transplant, who should be considered for parole, what scientific experiments should be allowed to happen, if I listed everything affected by the study of ethics I’d be here all day.
I don’t want a random schmuck who’s never thought about any of this for more than 5 minutes writing any of that, and I sure as shit don’t want people voting on it. That’s how you end up with abortion bans.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 24 Mar 19:44
collapse
I’m pretty sure a lot of professional philosophers would agree on abortion bans, while a schmuck like myself agree on “mothers choice”… So…
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 24 Mar 19:51
collapse
You’re pretty sure based on what? Even self-proclaimed pro-life philosophers admit their position is rare. Ethics itself easily argues in favor of abortion but not against it, which is one reason it’s available in virtually every secular state.
You are starting from your conclusion (philosophy isn’t worth funding) and working backwards to make that fit any new evidence presented to you.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 24 Mar 20:07
collapse
Not really. I’m just presenting arguments I have always had about philosophy not being a science.
Even if rare, not a single philosopher could make an experiment or present me a scientific theory that would prove that abortion is right or wrong. So the opinion of a single philosopher is as good as any other, and as good as mine for this matter.
Most modern philosophers are left wing, so yes, most philosophers would agree that left-wing morals are right, and that would present an opportunity for left-wing people to say that global morality should be decided by philosophers. I’m left wing myself but I’m against tricks and lies, even if they “benefit the cause”. And even if considering philosophers the moral light of our society would benefit me (as I mainly agree on most modern philosophers views) I personally consider it to be a false statement.
The not funding thing is on the air, yet. I’m just convinced is not a science, is more like literature and other forms of personal expression. And for me the argument would be founding all equally or none. And of course I don’t agree on giving any philosopher a position of authority on morals “just” for being a philosopher in the same way I would give a scientist an authority position in science just for being a scientist (once again, because the whole thing of science is that it’s subjected to experiments and falsifiability.
I don’t even want to diss philosophers. I enjoy reading philosophy a lot. But just as I enjoy reading any other kind of literature. I have respect for Liu Cixin (for instance) but I wouldn’t give him an special position in telling people what to do just because he writes good books that make you think.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 24 Mar 20:25
collapse
And now you’ve moved your goalposts; first it was ‘convince me philosophy deserves government funding,’ now it’s ’philosophy isn’t a hard science and can’t show me on a graph why abortion is wrong’.
If you just don’t like the humanities receiving government funds, just say so instead of doing this song and dance about how it’s really about science and equality.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 24 Mar 20:50
collapse
I literally wrote “I have a hard time understanding why we should fund philosophy studies with government money.”.
If you do a bias interpretation on that in your search for an enemy is on you.
I don’t write here trying to achieve any goal. I’m not a partisan not a propagandists.
My only goal, as suggested from the original comment was to know other people’s opinion a debate a little on that.
And I’m not even American, so I don’t really have much stakes on that the US government does or stop doing with their fundings.
As I have already said, it’s not that I don’t like humanities being funded. I don’t like them being treated as sciences, when they are not. I would support a humanities funding that would consists in a more democratic and spread funding that would allow to any member of the society to work on their humanities if they want. For instance funding for anyone self publishing a book on any matter (philosophy or fiction), building national archives and forums for this humanities to coexist.
But funding a philosophy department with a few elite philosophers who are getting a lot of money to do some philoshophing is just wrong from my pov. I could be convinced otherwise if a good argument is presented, but as far as it goes it has not been presented such argument.
You are already doing it on an amateur level. Imagine what a professional would be capable of.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 24 Mar 19:42
collapse
I only consider science those fields that can describe nature and assert this depiction of nature vie repeatable experiments. Thus I don’t agree on philosophy being a science.
I algo don’t agree that a professional would have better morals than me. Due the personal nature of what morality is.
Imagine I say my morals are the best, how is any professional philosopher to prove me wrong? It’s not possible. But if I say that “climate change is not real” a lot of climate scientist could show me evidence and offer me a set of experiments to undoubtedly prove me wrong.
That is so utterly stupid that it shows why you should take a philosophy course.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 24 Mar 21:12
collapse
I actually have. And I have read a LOT and I mean a LOT of philosophy.
All the great philosophers of history to begin with. I have read all their most famous works. And I have enjoyed them. I think they are great read. But great LITERATURE read. Not scientific reads.
I still think they are not science, as they do not describe nature. They just give opinions on several matters. And the few who dared to make any predictions about the future failed miserably.
If they are science they should be able to do predictions about nature. To propose experiments that are proven true. They should be falsable if proven untrue.
And just for the record, I have also read the full Bible. It’s also a great piece of literature, but it obviously doesn’t depict the reality of nature as a product of the scientific method.
And just to make a point, just because some old guy you got impressed by told you something is true, doesn’t make it true. Take this last sentence as you wish.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 24 Mar 08:29
nextcollapse
threaded - newest
I say we normalize this
“Hi, I’m here to punch Nazis and get and an oil change”
Make everyone declare they have no Nazis before you get into business
Lol. Make a flow chart
<img alt="https://i.makeagif.com/media/1-23-2017/mtkN77.mp4" src="https://i.makeagif.com/media/1-23-2017/mtkN77.mp4">
The dairy company Arla would be in trouble if they had to do this :D
Arla Finland has one of the few most prominent nazis in Finland in their board of directors. There was a bit of a scandal because of this about a year or two ago, but Arla’s Finnish daughter company said “we already know, but he has promised not to be a nazi during working hours, and it’s every employee’s personal choice what they do in their free time.” And Finland was okay with that (!!)
Guess if I have bought their products even once after that? 🙃
Well in that case, I suggest you show up and demand they submit their Nazi for punching so you can buy milk from them
Got perm banned from Reddit because I said all Nazis can go kill themselves. Worth it
I just said punching. Worth it.
Win win!
“Nazi lives matter”
I see this comment a lot on Lemmy and it’s disturbing. I too was perma banned for telling a Nazi to “go to hell”. 10 year old account with no prior bans.
.
Welcome to the club. 12 year account for me, I told off some mysgonistic redpiller who called another user a slur, I quoted the slur so he couldn’t edit, told him to go fuck himself with a telephone pole, the kind with all the nails from years of posters being posted on it, and then reported him.
Mods banned me for “incivility and using a gendered slur,” took no action on the other user, I appealed it, they acted like pubescent fucksticks, so to keep talking to people I knew in that community I made a new account, then admins perma-IP-banned me for ban evasion.
I’ve been fighting this so long that I’m now instantly shadowbanned across all of youtube, google and reddit every time I make a new account. They’ve gotten very good at silencing users so that their bot-army can simulate human society and adjust our narratives at will. (Yes, google and reddit work together to produce AI bots, they announced it a while back, nobody paid attention.)
see, that’s an untrue statement; I’m sure some are in comas or whatever and might need our help. maybe be less ableist next time and you won’t get banned.
I, personally, am willing to help any nazi kill themselves; they only need to ask. because I’m not a bigot.
You can’t say that! How am I supposed to kill them myself?
Yeah, kind of “killing the fun” right?! Lmao
I’m here to drink milk and kill nazis… and I’m lactose intolerant. >:(
Gas the nazis?
That’s just inhumane lol.
That’s the point. Humane is for humans. Being a Nazi, means you don’t care about human rights.
I’m joking. :)
I like soy milk and dead nazis :3
Soy is delicious and I don’t know why it’s an insult lol.
Because idiots think that eating foods that contain phytoestrogens like soy turn you into a girly man or some shit. The deterioration of education in the US and social media everywhere have ruined us.
its why gymbros believe, they think they will lose thier muscle mass, testosterone from it.
Free HRT?
More for me. :)
God I wish
Can I be a soy boi if I’m female
I’m not exactly an authority on handing out the title, but since I don’t believe in gender roles I say you’re good to go!
Hell yeee
Funniest thing is, the same men who use it as an insult, drink beer (Beer stimulates estrogen production). I’ve never seen anyone eat 500g of soy in one sitting. With pints, it’s a different story, however. Oh, the irony.
I am mildly allergic to dairy, so as a kid I had soy milk. I hated that stuff
Try oat milk, at least in coffee. Even people who otherwise have nothing against cow milk tend to say that oat milk is better in coffee than cow milk is. I’ve met only some who think cow milk suits coffee better. In my opinion oat milk is also better in cereals and porridge, but that’s something people often disagree upon :)
I accidentally picked up some Ben and Jerry’s oat milk style and it was delicious. I do prefer the regular but I wouldn’t mind getting the oat kind. Surprisingly to me, the oat milk version had slightly more calories.
I learned it’s really depending on the brand. I have tried a couple different ones, and only really like the taste of one
Soy milk in coffee is fire!
Plus I won’t be crop-dusting the whole day if I drink it
Remember kids, the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi!
Also Grammar nazis
I like your take, but I still prefer this iteration:
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/b89b9933-9357-49eb-8188-c2a3175c8c99.webp">
Though the character of Indiana Jones or Harrison Ford as a person aren’t really worth to aspire to. Sure, the nazi punching part is great but being a sexist piece of shit isn’t…
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good here
okay, so, ford I get, but jones was, for a 1930s guy, slightly above average. today he’s the equivalent of a guy who maybe was into jordan peterson a decade ago but thinks this andrew tate shit is fucked and maybe we should treat women like people in theory, but kind of fucks it on the execution, and doesn’t get mad when you call him out on it, but doesn’t quite fix it either. then goes and takes out his frustration on a nazi’s face.
and I’ll put up with a LOT of misogyny to get some nazis punched.
edit: honestly, shitty incel dudes? you can paper over a lot of being “low value” and “creepy” with a wall full of flayed nazi tattoos. I’m not even straight and I’d consider it with enough of them.
Why do you choose to see Jones in the context of the 1930s? It is a character based on the values of the 80s and onward. On top of being misogynistic, the character of Indiana Jones is also being the white hero playing into many racist tropes. So using Jones as this Nazi fighting hero doesn’t work even on the most basic level. Again, I’m all for punching Nazis, but we should choose better heroes or even better: no heroes at all!
I’m pretty sure they were based on books. I could be wrong.
problematic is not the same as nazi. as demonstrated by many of our (great) grandfathers, who killed a whole buncha nazis, and generally believed killing nazis was cool and good, but were still massively racist homophobic transphobic misogynist assholes. again, you can call me whatever slurs you want, as long as you’re shooting nazis in the head while you do.
Indiana Jones is an original character from the movies. That said, he’s certainly based on adventure fiction and movies from the 30’s that inspired Spielberg.
Wikipedia says:
Well, growing up in Germany with all my grandarents being more on the nazi side of WWII, I feel like the US idea of getting rid of nazis is that you just have to fight them like in WWII. It didn’t work though. German society and politics was still very much made up of nazis afterwards. Sure, they got taken the power to act upon their ideology in the same way as before. What you need is a systemic change where fascist ideas don’t have any space anymore, where emancipatory ideas can grow and where people are liberated in who they are and what they think. But the issue is, misogyny and racism like portrayed by the Indiana Jones movies are strictly opposed to emancipatory struggles. Giving discriminatory ideas like these too much space will again lead to more fascist tendencies. My point is, it isn’t always black and white, nazi or not nazi. I have no idea if my grandparents were all nazis. They were just kids brainwashed into this ideology. My granddad fought in the Wehrmacht against the allies, but he was just 17. It is easy to say “punch nazis” or “kill nazis”. But unless you have a clear cut enemy like in a political party or an opposing army, this gets messy pretty quickly.
yeah, you need to kill more of the nazis. you always need to kill more of the nazis. you need to keep killing the nazis until they aren’t nazis anymore.
yes, always try for better, but this purity bullshit is not helpful.
I dunno, a lot of the nazis around my part of the world are pretty visible. they look like the least fun dudes ever going to a gay leather event, or the obsessively clean cut white guy in a boring shirt. I mean, you won’t get all of them like that, but they do like themselves a uniform, even without an army. like, the burning cross nazis and the swastika nazis and the militia-bro nazis that kind of straddle the line all dress different, but they’re all pretty obvious.
Did they reinvent the onion?
What if they cut the funding so that people spend their time punching other people?
To me, it seems like a Luke and the emperor scene. They want the hate.
Humanities don’t need funding for expensive laboratories. What’s holding back people from making their own college?
no. please shut the fuck up. so, first, that’s a pseudophilosophical hollywood bastardization of a misunderstanding of a whole big complex philosophical system (actually a couple sorta related ones that were just sorta lumped together, because orientalism), via americanized christianity. you understand no part of that. try studying the humanities. please. you need that almost as badly as you need to punch a nazi. feel free to do it while cackling with glee instead of hate, if that’s what floats your boat.
no. fascism is fleeing reality for a solipsistic fantasy with a blindness powered by feeling persecuted and the thrill of victory. there’s a reason nazis like cocaine and meth so much; it’s basically the healthier version of what they believe in chemical form. but it’s more than that, because they have to flatten the territory to match their incredibly shitty map.
again; please study the humanities. or at least the places where they meet up with STEM and the sex parties get real weird. as soon as you’re done punching nazis. which, again, really really desperately needs doing. and I say punch, but I don’t actually super care if you punch any nazis, I don’t think punching nazis will fix anything.
punching, in this text, is a metaphor for shooting.
My point is not that fascism is just hate. I am sure you understood it though because you made your position clear.
Still I am intrigued to read more about your theories. That STEM and humanities meetup or the complex philosophical system that I don’t understand, could you give me a hint on where to start digging?
I’m kind of afraid to tell you because you’ll think you understand what the hell you’re talking about after a one hour documentary, like you thought you understood morality generally after the six hours of watching space wizards swing laser swords in each other’s general direction, but the dharmic religions, fuzzy taoism (that’s a whole thing) and bushido-which is mostly separate and kinda based on one guy who was as good at murder as he was bad at skin care. which I think makes me reverse miyamoto musashi.
and there are all sorts of places where they meet. my fav example of it is the old command and control/systems/cybernetics theory, where you had margaret mead(big 20th cultural anthropologist) and john von neumann(pure math guy) at the same conference. you get some in psychopharmacology but we don’t really study that at all scientifically so there’s not a lot there.
again, you don’t have any grasp on what you’re talking about for the first twenty hours. i promise. and if you think you have it figured out at 20 hours, you’re still probably wrong. there are monks that dedicate their lives to understanding this shit. you do not.
if you want the more western friendly version of bhuddism, try neitzsche, but he was deliberately abstruse specifically so dumb fucks wouldn’t think they understood his shit and misconstrue what he was saying. it didn’t work, but it did create a high barrier to entry. maybe that would be a good place to start.
Thanks a lot. By chance, do you know a lemmy channel where content in that area is posted?
please don’t try to learn this on social media. read an actual long-form book. you will not understand this based on social media interactions; I promise you. social media is not for learning beyond the most shallow surface information. it’s for light dopamine release and doom scrolling while you get your mind shredded by influence ops from all (but mostly fasch) directions and indulge your worst mental illnesses.
Exactly.
I will look into that Nietzsche though.
Almost funny that you suggest him while he was instrumentalized by the fascists as a fascist.
It’s still strange that you stress punching nazis while you have a deeper understanding of their mentality. Don’t people fall back to group strength when they feel vulnerable themselves? Punching Nazis will confirm that vulnerability.
he was instrumentalized by nazis because he used one word they liked, and had vibes they wanted to appropriate, and knew their people wouldn’t actually read it-except his sister/editor, who absolutely became a nazi a couple decades after his death, as soon as that was a thing that you could be. he actually explicitly dismissed the underlying (and extremely silly) basis of the master race thing in one of his books, despite dying in the year 1900. basically saying ‘your virtue comes not from your ancestry, not from the past, but by working your ass off to build and become more than you were. don’t be a little bitch who hides in other peoples accomplishments, real or imagined.’ the phrasing in the translation I read was something like ‘we are the hyperboreans, you and I, reader, who endeavor to somethingorother’ and it would take so much education on popular batshit 19th century estoteric racist cope to explain that one line to you, like one of those weird references in a jane austen novel that you need to either be of the time or a historian or a complete no-life nerd to get, and it’s absolutely not worth it unless you like learning about just how dumb europeans were at the time, but it is also explicitly the basis of the whole ‘aryan master race’ thing, which he explicitly calls bullshit on decades before the concept of fascism, or the war that birthed it, was a glimmer in d’anunzio’s eye, by saying that, basically, you get cool new stuff with hard work and intellectual courage, not jacking off to your grandpa’s high school photos. I think it’s in either “beyond good and evil” or “the antichrist” (neitzsche was not a fan of blood cults) if you want to read more. he WAS a 19th century elitist painfully german asshole, and he does explicitly state that he’s hard to read on purpose. so take what he says with some salt, but there’s good stuff in there.
it’s part of how fascists consume information. you skim and look for the stuff that confirms what you already believe, no matter how much you need to contort cherry pick or cut out whole paragraphs between words or just totally misremember stuff. it’s solipsistic as fuck. by design, if you’ve ever read the shitty book the german government put hitler up in a castle to write.
the punching in this context is a metaphor for shooting, as I said. it’s a whole identity thing about being the winners. I’m personally of the opinion that leaving ugly survivors is better than clean corpses, but I think enough of either would do the trick, and I’m not sure which is easier, being, as I concluded earlier today, reverse miyamoto musashi-bad at violence, great at skin care.
sure, you could try appeasing them, or soft approaches, but they’ve hit a critical mass where, if that were ever possible, it certainly no longer is. they need to be killed. they are solipsists, they have no concept of truth, and they don’t see you as human. they have made themselves into subhuman things that cannot be reasoned with, because they have no more reason. they cannot be negotiated with, because they do not live in the same reality as you. they cannot even be held to a treaty, because they do not have a conception of ‘truth’ or you-as-person; it does not and can not exist in their totalizing world view, which is hostile to contradictory information. it’s kind of terrifying that a person can become so entirely not a person anymore without substantial damage to bodily function. if you want to understand fascism, there are several scholars to start on. arendt is a popular one, if you don’t want to get too commie (and if you do, you already have favorites). if you want something absolutely shitlib friendly, ecco isn’t completely wrong even if he has to avoid describing a lot of it so he doesn’t have to look in any mirrors, but please read more than his 14 points.
Well, I have watched that monk movie.
So you see fascism as something else than colonialism of white people, as something with a spiritual component.
That solipsism, isn’t that something that also happens in consumerism and nowadays internet entertainment bubbles?
I would like to argue that it’s worthwhile to figure out how to reach people in that mental state because fascism and that state of mind are so ubiquitous that violence cannot win.
Don’t those scholars have any suggestions beyond violence?
no such thing.
movement in that direction is present a lot of places. do you know what the word means?
can’t unmix the drink, babe. sometimes, the best solution is a bullet. once you get past a certain point nazi, you cannot become a human again.
yeah, and they all boil down to ‘prevention’ and debates over the amount of violence once you fail to do literally any prevention. once you hit a critical mass of nazis, you gotta kill the nazis. they can’t be cured. my perspective doesn’t precisely match any of them, but once you get to this point, all the options other than violence are already off the table. ask me a decade ago, maybe there’s another way out. but the hour is fucking late, dude.
Not looking it up, it’s a worldview where only the person themselve is valid. Kind of like hedonism but without the joy or like utilitarism but without the concept for people.
I like to think of zombie movies as reflections on that problem. They imprint that there is no healing.
Is it space or matter? You cannot unmix a drink but you can distill the alcohol and you can reverse a position unless it’s near a black whole.
If we cannot reverse nazis then we lack enough knowledge of the mind. There must be a reason that somebody is rejecting truth, reality and the existance of other people. If we can identify that and show that it is irreversable then punching may be necessary. Otherwise we have found our own way of ignoring humans.
Think Musk and his daughter. It’s all political but at the core it’s hurt feelings.
you’re not going to figure it out arguing on social media. there are people I would love to have this argument with, but you aren’t one of them yet.
Where else? Academics won’t risk their career for it. Maybe we meet again one day and figure out a bit. This was very interesting. Thank you for the conversation.
Just gonna chime in to say this was a pleasant exchange to read.
Wow the arrogance and gatekeeping on you
this is literally a response to someone who said hating nazis was bad because they saw a movie about cyborg ninja alien space wizard samurai with laser swords shooting lightning at each other.
so, like, some compensation is definitely warranted. remains to be seen if I overshot.
i suppose so as long as all your humanities knowledge is already solved with no need to travel to new places, study new locations, or talk to new people
According to wikipedia, humanities neither include archeology nor sociology:
There is no need to travel. The people who research are either there or can be reached via internet.
the pama-nyungan language family is indigenous to Australia and all the languages in that umbrella are either endangered or extrinct already.
pick one:
a) it is already safely and thoroughly catalogued or reachable via the Internet
b) there’s already enough embedded researchers in indigenous Australian communities to study these endangered languages
c) it’s not humanities for some reason
d) probably should spend some money getting more students and professors out there to study it
It’s difficult to not get snarky. You obviously have studied but you argue against my position that humanities with limited funding is possible with the demand that a new university must be able to fund nieche topics. How is that necessary?
because a humanities without “niche topics” is going to cover a very limited subject matter, and in particular, a very certain bias of subject matter! if we design humanities with cost-savings in mind, this is the most inexpensive and readily available culture, language, history: the mainstream, the corporate owned, the majority opinion. funding in humanities expands the horizons and the populace that humanities covers, and without diversity, humanities is not worth teaching
You are arguing about the curriculum of a newly established college as if it were the research focus of the entire humanities.
Diversity doesn’t come from exotic trips but the matetial you cover and the way it is taught and debated. All classic texts are freely available. For centuries that was enough.
There can be trips and such once money is available. For that you need some alumni to get donations. They will not be there if you don’t start teaching which is, for humanities, possible with a minimal budget.
I mean sure sociology may not be classified as a humanities but archeology clearly is: “include the academic study of history” And sure maybe philosophers don’t need to travel but what do you do when you’re a historian and you need to consult historical records in another country? You are listing"the study of the performing art" how do you think people are studying these without going to the representations? And i may be biased because it’s what i am currently studying but how are we supposed to study geography without travelling???
Geography is not in the list and archeology is not history.
If the college is created in a city then there are performances to visit.
History records have to be limited to scans for the first years.
In general, research can be limited to what is possible. The important part is the freedom of mind, not the freedom of resources.
Humanities core
The humanities do not tolerate inhumanity
Well said. If they did, they wouldn’t really be humane. Allowing unnecessary suffering is inhumane.
humanity is a contract not a gift
It’s sad, but for studies that don’t result in income for the government, they’re just not interested in funding it. You wanna know about philosophy? Tough shit. We need more people for the fulfillment centers, you better get good at holding in your pee.
I have a hard time understanding why we should fund philosophy studies with government money. I would need some convincing.
Feel free to comment here your best arguments for it.
Do you want anyone other than priests advising government officials on ethics? Then you want philosophy majors.
Why would a philosophy major would have better ethics than my, for instance?
Ethics are greatly influenced by so many aspects different to whatever career someone chose to study.
And we could cut the middleman just voting and electing people with the same ethical values as me. It would be a piss off democracy if I chose a representantive who campaigned for painting all buses blue because I share that view just for some unelected person coming to say “no that’s not ethical you shall not do that”.
Ethics of a society emerge from the society, not from a few individuals. Every person have a set of values and in democracies we chose what are the government positions on those values by voting. I think moral lobbing by a few selected individuals would be bad, no matter if priest of philosophy majors.
Applied ethics is not ‘what feels like it would be the most correct thing to do?’, it’s writing professional codes of conduct, establishing criteria for who should be allowed to get an organ transplant, who should be considered for parole, what scientific experiments should be allowed to happen, if I listed everything affected by the study of ethics I’d be here all day.
I don’t want a random schmuck who’s never thought about any of this for more than 5 minutes writing any of that, and I sure as shit don’t want people voting on it. That’s how you end up with abortion bans.
I’m pretty sure a lot of professional philosophers would agree on abortion bans, while a schmuck like myself agree on “mothers choice”… So…
You’re pretty sure based on what? Even self-proclaimed pro-life philosophers admit their position is rare. Ethics itself easily argues in favor of abortion but not against it, which is one reason it’s available in virtually every secular state.
You are starting from your conclusion (philosophy isn’t worth funding) and working backwards to make that fit any new evidence presented to you.
Not really. I’m just presenting arguments I have always had about philosophy not being a science.
Even if rare, not a single philosopher could make an experiment or present me a scientific theory that would prove that abortion is right or wrong. So the opinion of a single philosopher is as good as any other, and as good as mine for this matter.
Most modern philosophers are left wing, so yes, most philosophers would agree that left-wing morals are right, and that would present an opportunity for left-wing people to say that global morality should be decided by philosophers. I’m left wing myself but I’m against tricks and lies, even if they “benefit the cause”. And even if considering philosophers the moral light of our society would benefit me (as I mainly agree on most modern philosophers views) I personally consider it to be a false statement.
The not funding thing is on the air, yet. I’m just convinced is not a science, is more like literature and other forms of personal expression. And for me the argument would be founding all equally or none. And of course I don’t agree on giving any philosopher a position of authority on morals “just” for being a philosopher in the same way I would give a scientist an authority position in science just for being a scientist (once again, because the whole thing of science is that it’s subjected to experiments and falsifiability.
I don’t even want to diss philosophers. I enjoy reading philosophy a lot. But just as I enjoy reading any other kind of literature. I have respect for Liu Cixin (for instance) but I wouldn’t give him an special position in telling people what to do just because he writes good books that make you think.
And now you’ve moved your goalposts; first it was ‘convince me philosophy deserves government funding,’ now it’s ’philosophy isn’t a hard science and can’t show me on a graph why abortion is wrong’.
If you just don’t like the humanities receiving government funds, just say so instead of doing this song and dance about how it’s really about science and equality.
I literally wrote “I have a hard time understanding why we should fund philosophy studies with government money.”.
If you do a bias interpretation on that in your search for an enemy is on you.
I don’t write here trying to achieve any goal. I’m not a partisan not a propagandists.
My only goal, as suggested from the original comment was to know other people’s opinion a debate a little on that.
And I’m not even American, so I don’t really have much stakes on that the US government does or stop doing with their fundings.
As I have already said, it’s not that I don’t like humanities being funded. I don’t like them being treated as sciences, when they are not. I would support a humanities funding that would consists in a more democratic and spread funding that would allow to any member of the society to work on their humanities if they want. For instance funding for anyone self publishing a book on any matter (philosophy or fiction), building national archives and forums for this humanities to coexist.
But funding a philosophy department with a few elite philosophers who are getting a lot of money to do some philoshophing is just wrong from my pov. I could be convinced otherwise if a good argument is presented, but as far as it goes it has not been presented such argument.
Philosophy is the science of thinking.
You are already doing it on an amateur level. Imagine what a professional would be capable of.
I only consider science those fields that can describe nature and assert this depiction of nature vie repeatable experiments. Thus I don’t agree on philosophy being a science.
I algo don’t agree that a professional would have better morals than me. Due the personal nature of what morality is.
Imagine I say my morals are the best, how is any professional philosopher to prove me wrong? It’s not possible. But if I say that “climate change is not real” a lot of climate scientist could show me evidence and offer me a set of experiments to undoubtedly prove me wrong.
I think of philosophy as a form of literature.
What we now call science developed directly out of philosophy. You don’t get to have science without it.
And the bible used to be considered an explanation on the origins of earth and the human being.
Luckily as time goes on humanity have been able to understand nature in better ways than we used to.
That is so utterly stupid that it shows why you should take a philosophy course.
I actually have. And I have read a LOT and I mean a LOT of philosophy.
All the great philosophers of history to begin with. I have read all their most famous works. And I have enjoyed them. I think they are great read. But great LITERATURE read. Not scientific reads.
I still think they are not science, as they do not describe nature. They just give opinions on several matters. And the few who dared to make any predictions about the future failed miserably.
If they are science they should be able to do predictions about nature. To propose experiments that are proven true. They should be falsable if proven untrue.
And just for the record, I have also read the full Bible. It’s also a great piece of literature, but it obviously doesn’t depict the reality of nature as a product of the scientific method.
And just to make a point, just because some old guy you got impressed by told you something is true, doesn’t make it true. Take this last sentence as you wish.
Funny how indi got me into science
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/752317f1-ff83-4047-8fe9-4f2e13325f2c.jpeg">
Just to interject a reminder:
The opposite of nazism/fascism is not communism/stalinism, it’s lib-left.
If you passionately hate nazis and all they’re about like I do, you see Stalin as the same jackboot with a different color uniform.
Back from Yet Another Globetrotting Adventure, Indiana Jones Checks His Mail and Discovers That His Bid for Tenure Has Been Denied