Hegar

joined 2 years ago
[–] Hegar@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Not in the late bronze age.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The Mycenian Greeks probably wrestled control of Crete from the Minoans ~300 before the late bronze age collapse of greek and hittite power structures.

Cultural elements and settlements of these "Eteocretans" remained, but I don't think the Minoans were in any place to halt anything at that point. During the period we call collapse they seem to have been doing a lot of fleeing into the mountains.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The first two claims are not really supportable:

Human beings are the only living things that are truly aware of their own mortality and spend time pondering the meaning of life and death.[24] Awareness of human mortality arose some 150,000 years ago.[25]

The claim that only humans are aware of mortality is from an article about COVID and death anxiety by 3 psychologists, no primatologists, paleontologist or animal behavior specialist. Recently published elephant burials and long documented chimp and corvid mourning behavior could undermine this claim. Although an emotional reaction to death may not imply awareness of one's own death.

The second claim that mortality awareness is only 150,000 years old is sourced to a 25 year old psychology paper. Our understanding of the human past has radically transformed since then. Sima de los Huesos may show mortuary practice from 400,000+ years ago, Dinaledi chamber may show non-sapiens mortuary practice from 200,000+. And if erectus (2M - 100k y/a) had fire, boats and language or proto-language well mortality awareness doesn't seem out of the question.

There's no good reason to think we know when awareness of death arose.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not true at all though. Plenty of lefties talk about the left. Like all the time.

Is there a trolling angle I'm missing or something?

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

I don't think he upset dick cheney.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

The d&d game summoning the devil was always my favorite. Always love a d&d episode.

Also any one where the pope is shown in league with someone unlikely - communists, jews, muslims, etc.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

Curl up in a ball and weep a salty creek.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Reading beyond the headline, I kind of agree that she faced a sexist double standard where she suffered electorally for things that wouldn't have impacted a male candidate as strongly.

Being a slimy, self-entitled political creature is pretty acceptable for a male politician.

Then again she did win the election by 2 percentage points. So as much as I dislike her, it's probably more of a structural issue than either sexism or candidate quality.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I always took them all whenever I found them - horrible things, I love them covers it perfectly.

But also, I wouldn't just leave a kitchen knife lying in public. Most people can be trusted to safely avoid the danger. But what if a child, or someone intent on harm found it?

The responsible thing to do is to remove the threat from the environment.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

how easy it is to procure

For sure. I grew up in australia. If I could snap my fingers and ban all guns I would in a heartbeat. But I live here and I know that's not possible.

The most feasible way to reduce the ease of getting guns is to hit the pocketbook of those who profit from how easy guns are to get. Our country is too corrupt for legislation to work. We have to sue companies and hope we like the changes they suggest.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Holding companies responsible for how their products are used is the closest thing we have to fixing the issue.

Being able to sue both the makers and marketers of guns designed for massacres creates pressure for a solution to be found because now someone who matters is losing money.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Focusing on AR-15 is ridiculous. They’ll use what ever the best thing is they have access to.

No, because an AR-15 was used in this specific case, and these specific companies were involved in making and aggressively marketing this specific gun to the specific person who used it to kill these people.

This isn't a "Marilyn Manson/video games/anything-but-guns is the real reason" type argument.

These specific companies' obviously dangerous practice of marketing guns to teenaged boys contributed to the events at Uvalde, or so the suit alleges.

It's an argument worth hearing the details of before judging.

view more: ‹ prev next ›