Continue with that analogy. What would happen if that woman had no other option. Should she choose the nice guy, the chad or object to the choice being fostered upon her and choose nobody? And if she’s paired anyway with that person, should she then act as if it was her choice, or take actions to disengage from that person and destroy the system that caused these turn of events?
It really doesn’t. This is the momentum of your country either way. Or did you forget that your democrats had chances to put Supreme Court justices and they just…didn’t?
I don’t think it does. A choice fostered upon me at the threat of violence is not a choice at all. I refuse to participate and therefore legitimize such a farce.
I understand that I’m living in an oppressive system enforced by violence and that my life is shaped at the threat of state violence. you don’t need to reiterate that to me. It’s why I’m not legitimizing it by participating in this farce of “democracy” and instead dedicate my life to changing it.
Whichever puppet is on top doesn’t change all that whatsoever. Nor will your platitudes about be “accepting the democratic consensus of the many” when I don’t have the alternative due to said violence.
Non-participation is not the same as doing nothing. If she chooses to date neither, neither is in her life. If you do nothing, you still get trump or Biden. The analogy doesn’t hold.
Continue with that analogy. What would happen if that woman had no other option. Should she choose the nice guy, the chad or object to the choice being fostered upon her and choose nobody? And if she’s paired anyway with that person, should she then act as if it was her choice, or take actions to disengage from that person and destroy the system that caused these turn of events?
It fits. You say the analogy doesn’t fit because “we don’t have a choice”. I tell you to adjust the analogy so that the woman doesn’t have a choice either.
That’s a good point actually. Arranged marriages existed for thousands of years. Women and girls were usually not given a choice, but even if when they were and chose the “lesser evil” it did nothing to end the tradition and evils of arranged marriage.
If the woman doesn’t choose any, who does she end up with? What should she do about it? You clearly see the absurdity when presented as an analogy, but you cannot see the similarity because the violence of the politicians is many levels removed from you.
Hate to break it to you, but your chess games have led you to the precipice of fascism and climate apocalypse. But keep playing, I’m sure the next game will reverse all that.
This is really funny to me because Google ruined their own search engine for advertising purposes; so much so that they now need to add “AI” to it to look good and hip again. Only if the “AI” results are actually good, it will hurt their advertising revenue, and it’s not quite so simple to tweak it the same way they cooked their search algorithms to serve you more ads, plus it will burn an ungodly amount of money to process each request. And if it’s bad, they’ll have wasted billions on it and will ruin their reputation even worse.
Nice Guy (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
source
Don't be a tool of the corpos and the state. (i.redd.it)
Another World is Possible (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Google is redesigning its search engine — and it’s AI all the way down (www.theverge.com)
Inb4 "oxymoron" (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Opinion | Will A.I. Ever Live Up to Its Hype? (www.nytimes.com)
Drug sniffing cats (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
How Epicurism leads me to Anarcho-Communism (dbzer0.com)
I wrote this a long time ago. It might be insightful to some of you.