17276667. Thanks for the memories.

Understanding underlying causes? On Lemmy? Abso-fucking-lutely not!

If you like strudel and Hitler liked strudel, then you’re Nazi by default. That’s just simple logic.

I’ve read Orwell and fully agree.

I hadn’t seen that column from Frye however - his statement about levels of language and thinking akin to levels of math was something I hadn’t seen put into words before and really enjoyed!

Words are wonderful and descriptive when you know how to use them and I’ve always felt that there is no perfect synonym for most. If you study language (at least in English), some really strange shit has happened over the last 20 years or so. Language via political pushes has happened way more often than any time I can find throughout recorded history thanks to the internet and flat-mass culture.

Left-wing language seems to have been pushed to obfuscate, and right-wing wording is pushed towards blame. Either way, linguistically it makes zero fucking sense sometimes. Broadly applying misunderstood terms has always felt like a dumbing-down to me (see the recent breakage of the word “literally”) and I feel it only hurts discussion and understanding of others.

For more function and clarity, I wish we created more terminology for edge cases instead of breaking specificity to apply to everything. As a reminder, I’m not here to spread my ideas, I’m here to discuss all ideas. Feel free to pick these apart!

Some examples (and please don’t be offended, I’m speaking about words and their usage, not accusing or maligning anyone):

1. Bigot - This is a massively overused word that is only partially understood since it became a slang. Why? Because the definition is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” So by definition it is anyone not accepting of other ideas, no matter how dumb those ideas may be. Vehemently don’t like anti-vaxxers, flat Earthers, liberals, leftists, the religious, atheists, Nazis, or conservatives? You’re the textbook definition of a bigot. This makes the word incredibly easy to overuse by anyone, because damn near everyone is a bigot about something, but you’re intended to simply intuit the kind of bigot the user doesn’t like from the usage and assume it’s an insult.

2. Gender - (Edited from our Gender weekly topic) I still don’t understand the purpose of gender beyond a useless classification akin to classifying people by hair colour and the definition doesn’t help. Take trans issues, for instance. If you are “transgender,” that means “I changed my gender” which in turn means… nothing because gender is so effusive. Even if it indicates change, then it changed from what to what? Does it mean you had surgery? Does it change daily? Maybe! But conversationally, it seems to only serve to mask things about a person rather than clarify them - it’s a useless term. On the other end, the term “trans-woman / man” makes sense. You immediately get more information about someone upon hearing it. It is additive instead of obfuscating language and means that that person is one sex, but presenting another. Easy, more accurate, and as a bonus, would sidestep some needless culture-war bullshit instead of wallowing in it.

3. Retarded - An obvious one, but why is that? We all know that it was a medical term and became an insult, but so were the words “dumb,” “dork,” “idiot,” and “imbecile.” Once it became a mild slur, people stopped using “retarded” as a descriptor and started using “special.” Then “special” became a pejorative. Quite literally any word implying that someone is less intellectually-abled is available as an insult. Really, I’d like to understand it, but someone already said it much better than I could.

4. Fascist - Seems to be a very popular slang among leftist communities from what I’ve seen and not really used much by the right wing (and yes, I can warrant a guess as to why some may think that is). Tends to mean “bossy / slightly less leftist than me / right-wing / independent / centrists that disagree with me on this particular issue.” I’ve had this entire sub reported for being “fascist” according to one user despite not adhering to any of the values that make up the definition and quite literally upholding the polar opposite values in most cases. Funnily enough, if you wanted to be fascist, you wouldn’t discuss things and encourage discussion with people with varied takes on a situation, you’d try to silence opposition.

5. Centrist - (From our weekly topic on Centrism / Independents) If someone says that they are “centrist” they are not telling you that they base all of their opinions on being dead-centre in the middle of the US “Left” and “Right” positions. That would be an astoundingly stupid position to undertake. Centrists are not a cohesive group and each have their own ideas - they may be a centrist because they take many positions that don’t adhere strictly to party lines. I think they only reason this take is as popular as it is on Lemmy is because people like to bad-faith strawman any arguments that aren’t theirs. It’s much easier to insult someone than it is to understand them.

I know that humans play with words and that language moves, but feel these are examples of political movement of words instead of natural linguistic movement. It’s certainly not an exhaustive list, just a few off the top of my head to test the waters.

Gah! I missed this thread. Hope it’s not too late to contribute. I am the C.E.O. (and an Economist) of a medium-sized I.T. firm in Canada and designed the company to be as ethical as it could possibly be from the ground up.

• All employees have equal votes after their initial 3 months is up in any part of the company that they are engaged in. I can (and have) been outvoted.
• After employees are here long enough (a few years), they can purchase shares if they like.
• I am the lowest paid full-time employee at the company by design. I do not take dividends.
• We operate on a Matrix org chart meaning that the “boss” on every project changes based on who is best suited to lead it and who has experience in that area.
• We have it in our charter that there are never any outside shareholders allowed. If you leave the company, your shares are purchased by the company for current market value. This includes myself. This is why employees owning shares is a good idea; it becomes a retirement plan. Unlike most corporations, we don’t want solely financially invested shareholders as they’re in business to extract value. They are parasites.
• We have acquired other companies. We have never had to pay for one. Our procedures are so thorough and ticket counts so astronomically low compared with other I.T. companies (which are called MSPs) due to our subsystems and customizations that they literally give themselves to us.
• We are as environmentally conscious as we can be. We redo and donate old systems to nonprofits and schools where we can. The only waste we put out is utterly dead hardware - no forced upgrade cycle. Electricity bills also drop dramatically at clients we take over due to more efficient machine use.
• During COVID, we gave away over $500k in free support. I figured it was more important that our nonprofit clients stay open than we stay open.
• We have a full FOSS stack that we can deploy if a company is open to it (and would like to save a bit of cash to boot).
• In nearly ten years, we’ve never had an employee leave, and never had a client leave (well, we had one restaurant client close during COVID, but I don’t count that).
• We have full benefits.
• We have zero interest in “infinite growth” as it’s not a functional model. We have turned down clients because they don’t “get” us and would be a headache for our staff.
• Our current goal is a 9-5 (not 8-5), four-day workweek for all staff.

I understand that not every business owner is “good.” I believe that with proper regulation, however, we can make them at least behave way, way the fuck better than they do now. It’s what I call Social Capitalism and it’s exceedingly functional from my experience.

I’ve built this model out in hopes it will catch on. I feel that if most companies operated under Social Capitalism that we’d be substantially better off. Certain aspects of it are so important and such a step up from the norm that I don’t understand how they weren’t obvious to other owners. But… greed I guess. Greed hurts every system it’s in.

Also of interest, we don’t have an issue with The Peter Principle as you’re never forced to move out of a position of competence or interest. You’re not salary-limited simply because you don’t want to be a manager; in fact, there are no managers.

I appreciate it! I mod !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca if you’d ever care to join us.

We try to disagree in good faith and not attack each other there.

That paper is not really a source, it’s a literature review. That’s not inherently bad, but essentially all it does is pull things in from other (if you check, quite outdated by nearly 60 years, which is a lot, ESPECIALLY for biology) articles and say “… and therefore this other thing may be true.” It’s essentially philosophizing.

The paper neither invalidate nor proves anything, it simply makes a loose connection to a strange claim.

The author is correct that we do have characteristics of herbivores. However that is not something anyone was questioning; that’s literally one of the requirements for being an omnivore. We also have characteristics of carnivores. And even obligate carnivores will often have some characteristics of herbivores due to evolutionary holdovers.

The paper is, essentially, saying nothing of value.

Errrr… are you looking for me to provide you a primary scientific source for how teeth work in animals with differing diets? Most of that is in veterinary texts (which is an amalgam of info), but it’s akin to asking for a scientific evidence for gravity. What you’re asking is too broad to be covered in a single paper and shows a misunderstanding of how scientific studies focus and function. I was simply giving you a primer since you asked, and that blog is good enough for that (and accurate from the portion I read).

I can point you at papers (such as this one on Tooth root morphology as an indicator for dietary specialization in carnivores) which can help explain part of how food selection works in evolution, but I’m not sure what level of information would satisfy you or why you’d even want it?

Here’s one on how tooth wear affects teeth differently based on evolutionary eating habits.

Here’s one on the development and evolution of teeth.

Here’s one on mammalian teeth in specific.

If you’d like more, feel free to use https://scholar.google.com/ to look for more.

Human teeth also have sharp peaks and deeper valleys within them which is the case for the overwhelming majority of omnivorous creatures. Most obligate herbivores have flatter teeth or will regrow them unless they have teeth explicitly for a particular use case.

Source: You can check out scads of scientific resources on herbivores versus omnivore versus carnivore teeth. I assume you know how a search engine works, but here’s a solid article on differences.

Also my sister has been one of the veterinary bigwigs at several zoos through her lifetime and we’ve had multiple discussions on it.

Well. My child is that age and I very much relate to the protagonist. Was not expecting a gut-punch this afternoon.

The Jaunt by Steven King

One of my favorites short sci-fi stories ever.

Trailer here.

A few recommendations for various reasons, some known and some less-so:

Romance:

• What Dreams May Come - Robin Williams in a kind of version of Dante’s Inferno. Deals a lot with death and a non-religious afterlife. I’m a stoic 6’4 dude and weep openly every time I watch this.
• Love Never Dies - Did you know there’s a real official sequel to the musical Phantom of the Opera? There is. It’s okay, not great, but pretty fascinating more as a cultural artifact. I think I remember a decent song, but nothing like the first. It would have been better to make it straight up fucking weird like Starlight Express.
• The Fountain - This is one of the most artistically-sound and crushing love beyond time movies I’ve ever seen. I’ve watched it about a dozen times and swear there’s at least three movies in here once you understand it. Amazing visuals, and great performances and one of my favourite films of all time period.

Thriller / Horror:

• Dave Made a Maze - So a guy makes a spatially-impossible cardboard structure in his house. It’s… fun. There are minotaurs. Also made of cardboard.
• Cigarette Burns - From the series Masters of Horror. It’s 1 hour long, but is extremely well-done and handles dread amazingly with a great pay off.
• 1408 - The best version of a “haunted room” movie I’ve ever seen, actually creepy in many places, and one of Sam Jackson’s all-time best “MOTHERFUCKER” moments.
• Dog Soldiers - This one is a tad more common, but it’s the best werewolf movie I’ve found and gets the monsters 100% correct. Low-budget, but astounding creature effects for werewolves. A lot of Alien vibes.
• Drag Me To Hell - Another common one, but it’s one of the best things Sam Raimi has done outside the Evil Dead series, and definitely the closest he’s come to Army of Darkness since. If you’re even a casual fan of Evil Dead or horror-comedy, and haven’t seen it, what are you even doing?

Comedy:

• The Birdcage - Was big at the time, but I haven’t seen anyone mention it in ages. One of the great Robin Williams performances for both comedy and drama. He runs a drag club with Nathan Lane.

Action:

• Equilibrium - Came out roughly the same time as The Matrix and got completely buried. Excellent action scenes. Christian Bale does a 1984 / F451.
• Batman: Assault on Arkham - One of the best DC Animated movies ever. Yes I know that Mask of the Phantasm is better, but this is still really good and legitimately funny.

“Bad” Movies That Aren’t At All Bad:

• The Sorcerer’s Apprentice - Nick Cage does basically a Pirates of the Caribbean and it’s a shitload of fun.
• Drive Angry - More Nick Cage. It’s needlessly badass in the dumbest way possible and is hilarious.

Just as an FYI, I’m a mod of the sub !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

Based on our interaction, I’ve made our new Weekly Thread. You may be able to snag a few more converts… Your post was great and you could always repost it in the thread if you’d care to!

https://lemmy.ca/post/20869108

Full Report: Acquired the movie right after we messaged.

My wife was working on our book and about ten minutes in wound up putting it down and watching it with me. This is notable because I haven’t been able to convince her to watch known great movies with me. She will not watch Lord of the Rings and hasn’t found the time to watch Edge of Tomorrow with me since release. She gives no fucks about any Godzilla or King Kong movies. This? Well… the moment the gorilla flipped off The Rock, we were in.

She had a hard out at 11 PM due to work, but requested I stop and watch the rest with her tomorrow. What the fuck kind of magic shit is this?

I don’t know how to describe it. Maybe it’s a bad movie very well told and sold by everyone involved? Everyone was likeable and seemed to be having fun. There were a bunch of solid actors in it we both knew from other things, and (most surprising of all) the comedy actually worked. I’d actually say it was probably one of the best 3 video game movies ever, and I’ve seen all but 2. I know that may not seem like a lot, but… 14 year old me loved Mortal Kombat at the time, so it’s some kind of praise.

The Nick Cage movie “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” (and maybe also Drive Angry) is one of the only other movies in my collection that I consider in this camp. It’s not great cinema, but it’s a really awesome ride.

You sold it 100% accurately, and I really appreciate it!

I… Am kinda taken aback here and legit don’t know what you’re referring to. I could delete my posts if it would help?

I’m sorry if I pushed buttons I should not have, but I genuinely do not grasp the friction here and would very much like to. I was enjoying the discussion and was happy that a thread actually took off for us for once.

If this is a touchy subject that you would rather move on from, then we will.

Definitely. When I did all of my forestry work, we were warned about brown bears extensively. Don’t get on their territory. If you have to, don’t take chances. Don’t fuck with them.

I don’t know where the idea comes from that these things will just leave you alone. They will not.

I wanted to make sure I came back to this when I had the time in real life. For what I state, you should know that I was an extremely meek child and hardly a troublemaker.

• When I lived in Saudi Arabia as a white 14-year old male. I was held at assault rifle point multiple times and robbed.
• When I lived in Thailand at 15, I was sexually assaulted by a trans-woman.
• When I lived in Cincinnati at 16, I was beaten by a group of African American kids I went to school with.
• When I lived near Edmonton at 17, I was beaten by a teacher for missing my homework.
• When I lived in Medicine Hat at 10, I was punched in the face by a teacher for sitting in the wrong spot.

None of these are made up or exaggerated experiences. Cruelty wasn’t the point of any of these. The point was (in order) robbery, sexual gratification, power, power, and power.

Misassigning motive is harmful because it stops you from addressing the issues presented and assumes that people are “lost causes.” I don’t believe that to be the case. You can’t fix something where the point is cruelty, because people can’t get a fix of cruelty in other ways. You can try to repair other issues however.

We want the same outcome, but I want to find out how to get there without pushing people out of the solution.

Why were they acquitted? I have no idea as I was too young at the time to be following trials, but it doesn’t mean anything about my previous statement was incorrect.

People can be cruel, but the goal is not often cruelty. In this instance, the goal for the officers was most likely to regain a feeling of power in my best estimation - a “how dare you not do what I say” attitude and they used cruelty to get it.

Again, their motivation doesn’t explain why they got off, however. I disagree with that decision wholeheartedly.

I could very much see how, by not being able to understand certain situations, someone might assume that cruelty was the point, but it dismisses the reasons a person or group might attempt something. Cruelty is rarely the point.

The only way we can stop abuses is by doing away with simplistic “chant”-like phrasing and finding the real issues behind things.

To use your example, policing. It’s a complex one, but I can assure you that in no police training ever tells the trainees to be massive dicks and injure every minority they see. The point can be power. The point can be maintaining the letter of the law, and at their sole discretion. The point can be self-preservation out of fear for themselves. We can’t know all of them, and they change in the moment depending on the situation.

If cruelty was the point, then we could just appoint non-cruel people to be officers and the problem is solved, but that isn’t the case. We have to address the underlying issues which are different for every officer. That’s why it’s complex. We can start with systemic corrections such as de-escalation policies being the default, choosing different response teams for different issues, removal of lethal weapons, and harsher punishments for missteps. Those have been found to be effective. But simply hand-waving away things as “cruelty is the point” doesn’t help fix the situation, it dismisses it. We must come at bad situations with ways to stop them, not simply be angry at them.