Hard R and all. You're getting so cancelled on 2055 when non-organic people get the right to vote.
daniskarma
joined 1 year ago
I read that the paintings "pinkie" and "the blue boy" were famous at the time when mass consumer products started being commercialized, thus the association.
I will go summit the Everest.
Most recruiting comes from legal extremist groups with linked ideologies.
Usually terrorists will approach you, more than the other way around. After you've been profiled you may be invited/coerced to join.
If they want you to make an "action" (they usually not call them terrorists attacks), they will provide you with minimal information, and the supplies will only be provided strictly when needed. Depending on what you are doing it can be hours of weeks before the action. Training will be non-existent. Most terrorist actions do no require training, just a human to do simple actions. If you are in an active warzone it would be different, you'd be trained as militia. But for typical domestic terrorism they won't really provide training right of the back. If with time you grow into the organization they may train you in shooting if you would be doing actions which require shooting a weapon, or in explosives if you are going to be more involved with that. But terrorist groups tend to rely in recruiting already trained people more than in training them themselves.
As for ideological brainwash, you are expected to have some good degree of radicalization before joining, but a great degree of brainwashing will happen in jail once you are caught. A terror group is another prison gang, and they will try to keep you inside their ideology while in prison so you can continue working inside and, maybe, outside once you are out, probably not with direct actions anymore.
At least that's my understanding on what happened with ETA and yihadism here in Spain
It's good for what it's good, and bad for what it's bad.
If you only use it for what is good I would suppose it would be easy to be more productive. Sometimes is faster to ask an LLM than trying to surf through pages of SO "repeated question" to get an answer.
I use mostly for things like that, questions, translation between languages (for instance having some working code in one language that you want to quickly translate to other language), boiler plate of well known algorithms and functions.
For full programming development I've no luck to make it work. And trusting it to refactor all your code would be something hilarious.
I've always been wary of Kagi, as they have not been very clear about how big part of their search is based on their own index and how much is metasearch on various other engines.
I'm proudly bellow average.
They have been summoned. Soon they will arrive, and they will show no mercy.
🇵🇱
I have my doubts over that. I think expression without label restrictions is more free and organic.
At the end a gender, any gender. Is a sum of behavioral characteristics. But there are too many characteristics that can be flip floped all over the place. And having those layers is oppressive towards people wanting to express outside that label expected set of characteristics. As much diverse layers as we want to create they will never be as infinite as the infinity of the behavioral human spectrum.
On a more political side I sometimes fear that gender expression are used to create dominance groups. "We are Z gender, and I'm the Z gender representative so I get power all over these people". It's easier to dominate groups when they are categorized and segregated. I know is the main big thing about identity politics, which is somehow hot in some places left agenda. But I'm very against it. Only identity that matter to me is human and everything else it not segregable to me.
I do believe gender is a social construct that's becoming outdated. And that we shouldn't have nor woman nor men, at all.
Make of that what you want.
I don't know if all european countries. But here the 30 minute break is also counted as work hours.
17
(OPEN-ENDED) I think the point of arguing is not to convince the other part or the anonymous readers. The point is to understand them.
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!
I think one of the issues with online arguing, from most takes on it, is that the main reason people have to argue is to spread an idea. Whether it's by convincing the opposing part of the argument and making them change their mind, or by changing or reinforcing the mind of anonymous readers of the argument.
Most of the time this leads to one of two conclusions: If someone tries to change the other person's mind they will, most likely, find themselves hitting a wall, which will lead to frustration, disinterest, or personal attacks once it's seen that the other person will not change their mind. If they do not care about changing the other person's mind and just want to make clear that their own position is the right one to have, then the argument becomes a game of winning and losing. This could be achieved by many ways, depending on the context, it could lead to insulting and trying to put group pressure (via downvotes for instance) to make the other person's opinion seem as the "bad" one. Or via creating a game of rules, and play that game better to become a winner. Please excuse the small attack I'm about to make on this very space, but part of this second approach is the rules of debate, as in consider arguments without sources, emotional responses, or fallacies as losing points in the game of arguing. And often when the other part falls into one of this issues the goal quickly becomes to point out all this "faults" the other person made, so they are clearly shown as the loser. Don't get me wrong, it is important to argue without fallacies, and to be able to prove any statements that one's make. But I don't think anyone gains anything when the argument becomes a match on who is able to ask for more sources, link more articles and identify more fallacies.
That being said I'm going to just link some literature that support the basis of this statements. Can Arguments Change Minds? . This article goes into great lengths to show something that's easily seen when arguing online: People don't change their minds from an argument. The process of changing someone's mind is very complex. The article explains some study cases where people from extremist backgrounds changed their minds over time, in a context of discussion, but it's stated that this change had a lot more going out that just a proper intellectual discussion.
Why bother then? In my opinion, the best thing we can get when arguing with someone whose opinion differs to our own is to understand them. To find out their way of seeing things, their motives, their reasoning. That's a great value. And to get this often we need to let them talk the way they want to talk, this tend to lead to some undesirable things, like mentioned fallacies, unsupported claims or straight up bigotry and name-calling. But I think that it is still valuable knowing if that's their only reasoning, or trying to push past those to see if there's something more in depth about why they don't agree with us. But, ultimately, focusing the discussion in getting a win, will often make us miss a lot of valuable information that we could have gotten if we just saw the argument as a way to understand the other person, and of course, to understand ourselves. And not only for us to understand them, but to them to understand us. Explaining our point of view in the clearer way possible, and focussing not on winning when we talk about our opinions, but on showing why we have those opinions. To be able to reach a point of "I don't agree with you but I understand you".
Of course the big elephant in the room here is that taking this approach to it's logical conclusion would mean letting some people express ideas that we don't want to be expressed. The obvious example here is hate speech. Should hate speech, or extremist arguments be allowed, and discussed? If allowed, what's our goal when engaging into an argument with them, to convince, or to understand and make the other part to also understand us? This is where I'm more torn apart, as the logic of this reasoning leads me to believe that the best is the later, but it confronts with everything I've learn about how to deal with hate speech and dangerous ideologies until now. Thus why the (OPEN-ENDED) tag, and why I hope for anyone to jump and give their opinion on this.
view more: next ›
Don't forget to make the neck rest at a 13° angle so they don't get to comfy in there.