I’ve been thinking about this a lot.

Not everybody trusts what’s written in the textbooks. And it’s actually likely that things have to be proven over and over again for some people to actually believe it. That means that there has to be a continuous flow of “bad examples” to incentivize learning how to prevent them. It might not actually be avoidable.

Ah, yes, I agree. It’s definitely the four humors

I think for these people it’s probably less the four humors and more “your personal soul that’s judged by god” or sth like that.

Humans have supplanted natural selection [with modern medicine]. Evolution will not fix this.

It might still if you refuse to go to the doctor.

Apart from that, the majority of evolution today happens through sexual selection: The potential partner that appears fitter is chosen and reproduces, it’s not necessary for the less-fit potential partner to die.

I had read a conspiracy theory somewhere that “freebirth” is all about being “anti-establishment”.

In this picture, everything that has to do with the federal government (including being a “certified” medical personal) are seen as being “top-down”, and it’s “seeking independence” to reject that. That’s why they don’t even want any medical professional to see the baby, because they’re worried that the baby is going to be implanted a chip to make it adhere to future state ideology or sth, and that can only be avoided by basically giving birth at home and not even telling the state that a pregnancy is about to happen (so they can’t forcefully transfer the woman to a hospital), so there’s a bit of secrecy about it too.

Personal comment/interpretation: I mean, it’s interesting to watch how these ideas of “anarchy” and “self-determination” unfold here. It’s very interesting to see how the same idea of “wanting to be independent” can manifest itself in completely different, and often opposite, ways. It’s like if somebody told you that the establishment is bad, and you’ve heard these words your whole life, how do you know it’s not true? How do you go to a hospital if everybody around you is wary of that and says they might want to poison you or idk what? How does a medical system (that is financed by the state) build the trust that it is actually safe to go there? How do you reach the people that don’t know you yet?

is another bad guy with a nuke? because what could possibly go wrong

you’re expected to be grown up and mature by 18 which is impossible because you could never make any experiences at all

you can’t drive anywhere if you grow up in a rural area and your parents refuse to drive you anywhere (happened to me, mum only let me see that one kid from rich parents to socialize because she wanted me to “grow up in good neighborhood” - needless to say, it didn’t work out and we don’t have contact anymore).

lol

They insist that one of my parents must be Jewish and I’m just in denial or something.

u know that exact thought came to me so many times. That some of my grandparent must be jewish because … idk it’s just a vibe.

in leftist European circles in particular that sees porn as inherently patriarchal and wrong and

i would just like to point out that not everybody sees it like that. i identify as leftist and don’t see things that way, even though porn often is exploitative. but that has nothing to do with the porn itself, but with the economic coercion that is at play when the thing is created: for money. that’s the problem, that it happens for money, and not voluntarily. and that’s an economic problem, not one of porn itself.

That should be the default position for everything, including education and law making.

you’d be surprised how much of our modern society is built upon thinly-veiled ideas from theology and spirituality. there’s the whole human rights thing, the whole “education makes us morally better people”, the list is long

Western moral relativism

this is called post-structuralism btw, just so you can give a name to it

the idea that there is no (absolute) right or wrong, only subjective interpretations of the world

I’d like to know, what’s your opinion on banning social media for minors?

I used to be all against it but now i see the point in it. It should be done at the device-level though, not website’s responsibility.

to quote a (woman) friend of mine: “es heißt er-ziehen, nicht sie-ziehen, weil frauen muss man nicht erziehen.”

translation: it’s called he-ducation, not she-ducation (in german), because women are born perfect or sth. it works better in german though because “erziehen” is a bit decoupled from “educating” (we have “bilden” for that instead) and more on the “tell them what to do/how to behave” side

to quote my uncle: “i’m not gay, i’m italian. it’s easy to mix that up.”

examples? from, you know, actual life?

“It wasn’t because Biden voters shifted to Trump—but because so many of them stayed home.”

I’m sorry but that is bullshit. That’s like saying that the protestor died because the gun released a bullet, completely forgetting that the police aimed at them in the first place.

Voters stayed home because they felt uninspired by whatever democratic candidates tried to represent. The thing is, i’m in europe and i do follow the news, but i barely ever heard any specific plans from Kamala. i never got the “oh wow that’s a good idea” thought, because there was poor communication, no exposure, etc. It’s all a bubble. If you’re inside it, it seems like there’s a lot of communication. But that communication doesn’t leave the bubble because it doesn’t speak the other’s language. It refuses to communicate with people who are not already on the same page. That’s why a lot of commenters are gonna reply to my comment, saying “no, actually, Kamala’s messaging was great”. Because they experienced it like that, because they actively seeked out the communication, and found it. But to the typical voter, who’s not specially politically involved, and not specifically seeking out the communication, they don’t get exposed to it.

On top of that what i’m strongly considering is that our political stances need to recognize that people really just want to live, both now and in the future. They want to have the economical perspective that they can buy nice stuff, and that the world is somehow gonna develop into a better tomorrow. A political party is gonna win exactly if it can provide these two to the people. That’s what we need.

further proof that the “left/right” political divide is bullshit

i heard a great lecture on it last week calling it an “empty significand” because it doesn’t mean anything. the idea behind it is that if you reduce the meaning within your category, that’s a good thing because you’re implementing the intersection set of many different people’s political view, which is necessarily going to be rather small.

most people just want to live. they vote for mamdani, because they want to live and recognize they need economic support to do so, and they voted for trump because he promised (but didn’t deliver) on lowering the cost of living. most people don’t really care about anything else.

ngl, i thought about becoming a farmer, but i value living in a society above living on a farm, though both are actually important to me.

the thing is to be a farmer in today’s economy is close to impossible, and also i lack experience and equipment.

oh yeah that makes sense, thanks

by the way, i’m curious, what does “reactionary” even mean?

is it re-action in the sense of acting again? is it reaction in the sense of responding to somebody else’s actions?

taxing wealth instead of work is also an economically sound decision if you want to boost productivity and your economy’s revenue.

As a general rule, when taxes on products are lower, that means these products cost less to the consumer, so consumers buy more of it [rule of supply and demand, also speaks about the connection between price and traded quantity]. So there’s more revenue and more products sold, which boosts production.