• 0 Posts
  • 67 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle
  • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
    cake
    toProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlLemmy today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    For those horrible enough to like this.

    Sometimes each other too if my information is correct. So even if you are a bad person and want to harass innocent people, kiwi farms isn’t the place to be.

    Bad people are bad people towards you too if you give them the chance. Just don’t be bad, much better. Don’t hate!




  • I think it is a bit unfair to give you shit for your question.

    it is normal to confuse authoritarian system with restrictions of freedom. Because generally that is how it works. But not in this case…

    Because it is the paradox of tolerance all over again. Technically it is authoritarian to ban slavery but it would be more authoritarian to allow it as people would own people… So on the scale of how authoritarian an action is, banning slavery is as anti-authoritarian as it gets and allowing slavery is as authoritarian as it gets. (Of course, a world without slavery and without any rules would be less authoritarian but… I think we know better than trying that with slavery)

    I hope this helps in actually understanding the reason instead of being told what it is.



  • E.g. it is a reality that there is currently some correlations between race and e.g. poverty. Even we don’t consider those correlations when enacting laws, we create unjust laws that impact some races more than others, which would feedback into those correlations.

    Extremely stupid example for. CT (critical theory in general), if your government would enact a law that would state that the government would build you your dream house for 5 millions. Even if it is more expensive than 5 million. Then “everyone” can get their dream house on paper, but in reality only the rich can get it and they get additional wealth that the general public would have to cover. Impoverishing the poor more and enrich the wealthiest more. So an unjust law.




  • I read it here before but the best way is deconstructing a specific case of the person in question choosing. The problem is that replacing one influencer with another one won’t change the understanding issue of misplaced trust in media/people.

    I think that these things should be voluntary by the way. Both for success chances and pure respect for your sibling.

    Ask him if they would be interested. Then make them choose an episode. Prepare yourself. Ask them to prepare a little document in which they express their understanding and lesson that they learned from the episode. Ask them if they are willing to investigate how true these things are. Look for evidence together or alone. When done, get together and talk about the truthfulness of the ideas.

    Alternatively ask yourself if they have some kind of expertise in something and look if there is a Joe Rogan episode about and suggest them to watch it. The deconstruction would happen automatically. You can help by ask them questions about it. Having to vocalize criticism towards something is an amazing reflection exercise.