rah

joined 1 month ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com -1 points 1 month ago

Giving up advancements in science and technology is stagnation.

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting giving up some particular, potential advancements in science and tecnology, which is a whole different kettle of fish and does not imply stagnation.

Thinking it’s a good idea to not do anything until people are fed and housed is stagnation.

Why do you think that?

[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com 4 points 1 month ago (9 children)

They didn’t prevent him from leaving.

As I already pointed out, they did prevent him from leaving. He got up and started to move and then a police officer forcefully pulled him back on to the ground.

[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Is it pixelated for you or something?

No.

It's pretty visible on my end.

I asked you to show me where and you gaslighted me in response.

[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

stagnation

Why do you see feeding and housing everyone as stagnation?

[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

The people who are motivated by advancing technology, aren’t motivated to overcome corruption, incline equality, to replace economic systems, etc.

That seems a bit presumptuous. Why do you think people who are motivated to advance technology aren't motivated to overcome corruption, etc.?

All you’d be doing is stifling innovation, improvement, a reason for hope in the future

I disagree. I don't see why focussing on feeding and housing people implies stifling innovation. And do you not see feeding and housing everyone to be an improvement and a reason for hope in the future?

[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

would like to present to you a technique that was co-developed with the help of other so-called experiencers

I'm much less interested in the technique itself than I am in how it was developed.

In fact, recently speaking with ChatGTP

I stopped reading there.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91344759/reddit-moderators-banning-users-chatbot-fueled-delusions

This whole thing reeks of ego and delusions. It seems to be all about you.

[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

LOL you're gaslighting me. I just said I can't see what they're throwing at and you responded by telling me I can clearly see what they're throwing at.

I'll repeat myself: I cannot see what they're throwing the fire at.

[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (11 children)

have the right is a reason to hit someone

Why is having a right to hit someone a reason to hit them? I have the right to smash my own hand to pulp with a hammer but the fact that I have that right isn't a reason for me to do it.

Now they should have given him a chance to walk away again but that isn't a requirement. They can keep hitting him till he leaves.

So you're saying the police have the right to hit whoever they like for as long as they like, all they have to do is prevent them from leaving the area? That's crazy.

[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com 6 points 1 month ago (6 children)

In the first second, someone tries to throw burning gasoline on a horse.

I don't see where that's happening. All I see is a line of fire appearing underneath some trees' canopy. I can see neither who throws it, how, nor what they're throwing it at; the canopy obscures everything.

Are you claiming you can see what they're throwing it at? If so, could you take a screenshot and highlight the target?

[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com 1 points 1 month ago

Oh the irony that this is now homed on a UK server.

[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (13 children)

They hit him because he’s behind the line.

I don't understand what line you're referring to.

By law they can use force to compel him to move.

But he got up and started to move and then yet another police officer forcefully pulled him back on to the ground. What you're saying doesn't make sense.

In layman’s terms, they can hit you until you leave the area.

Having the right to hit someone isn't a reason to hit someone. The police officer who hit the citizen with a long stick had no apparent reason to hit him.

[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com 3 points 1 month ago

Because politics has become entertainment. Starmer is boring, Farage is entertaining.

view more: ‹ prev next ›