Mnemnosyne

@Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Mnemnosyne,

This started to become noticeable years ago when Google decided to start censoring searches even with SafeSearch off.

I switched to Bing at that time, which was good for a while, but eventually they have started doing the same thing.

I can now no longer find a search engine that actually works to find me all the relevant results. I’ve tried all that I’ve heard of, and none will provide complete results.

The easiest canary in the coal mine for this is NSFW stuff. If I search for a popular character of which I know there’s lots of porn/hentai, with SafeSearch off, and do not get a heavy mix of SFW and NSFW results, I know that search engine is messing with those results, and is also definitely doing it with searches that are not so obvious.

Mnemnosyne,

I don’t think this argument would go in the right direction, cause there’s plenty of Republican types who’ll just go ‘ok, then let’s just shoot them on sight, bullets are cheap’.

Mnemnosyne,

Nope, wouldn’t really be in less danger. That’s something that bothers and concerns me, people act like it’s Trump that’s the problem, but he’s really kind of irrelevant. This is the Republican party, this is all Republicans. Trump is not some bizarre outlier, at least not in the sense of the things he wants to do and will push for and enable as President. Every Republican wants those too.

bffr and look up what solidarity is (lemmy.cafe)

Solidarity denotes the unity and mutual support among individuals with shared objectives, crucial in protests for reinforcing collective resolve. Protests are strategically held in high-visibility, disruptive locations to maximize impact and draw public and institutional attention. This disruption compels acknowledgment of the...

Mnemnosyne,

Protests are effective if there’s a credible threat to those with the power to change whatever is being protected about. If the protesters do not pose a threat of any kind (and I don’t mean just one of physical violence, since that’s often one of the least effective potential threats, although it can have value at times) then nothing will change.

But protesting where you cause an inconvenience to those who neither support nor oppose the protesters can often be a bad move. On occasion it can serve to bring people’s attention to the issue and convince them, but in my experience, if the first experience someone has with an issue, the first awareness they have of it is some protest that caused them problems, that person is likely to be disinclined to become a supporter of the cause, and indeed is often likely to be pushed towards opposing and cracking down on the protest.

This of course can backfire, since if the protesters pose an electoral threat, for instance, and the protests cause a bunch of people to be angry at them and just want the crap to end, those in power are given the message that hey…there’s support for just getting rid of the protesters.

Mnemnosyne,

They believe the law is a magic language, where if you learn the secret words and perform the secret rituals, you get to use shortcuts to bypass the normal rules. They see themselves as a secret society of law wizards, essentially. In some ways media has encouraged this by making contracts and such to be these arcane things with tricksy loopholes if you just figure out how to sneak through, but their belief goes far beyond what you might see in media.

They also hold lots of contradictory ‘logic’ and opinion. Like that the government/corporations/someone is trying to screw you, and yet for some inexplicable reason they will instantly capitulate and be powerless if you speak the right words. It really, really has parallels to the concept of binding demons and such with magical contracts with the right magical words. Or the fact that they believe these things to be secret-ish and relatively unknown except by their peers, but at the same time become outraged when every minor functionary of any government or company doesn’t immediately recognize their secret words and capitulate.

It’s as though the same sort of people who once believed in witchcraft and demons and all have adapted to the modern world where all that stuff is laughably false, but we all believe in ‘the law’ and ‘science’ and such, and therefore they come up with superstitions dressed in the clothes of law, but it’s still the same old stuff. It’s very similar to the bronze age man who sacrifices a goat or his daughter or whatever in order to get better crop yields.

Mnemnosyne,

Also he needs to be up there to hit them with his sword.

Mnemnosyne,

I did years ago when Google started censoring my search results even with safe search off.

Unfortunately Bing is doing it too now and I can’t find a search engine that isn’t, though I would love to learn about one that isn’t.

Mnemnosyne,

Sure there is, but too many progressive voters just seem to be unwilling to act to get them. It takes long term planning.

Let’s look at Barack Obama, a man whose political career to President was considered to be extremely fast, and who was considered to be very inexperienced and a shockingly fast rise.

He was elected President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, 18 years before he would become President of the USA. In 1992 he directed a voter registration project/drive in Chicago that was successful enough to be big news. In 1996 he was elected to the Illinois State Senate, and in 2000 he lost the primary for a US Representative position.

But here’s a very important part: in 2003 he became chairman of a state committee when Democrats regained a majority. This allowed him to have some legislative successes, specifically in the field of racial profiling. Hmm, that ain’t gonna be important in Illinois ever again, is it?

With that legislative success, he was able to win the primary for Senate, but even then, this essentially required the incumbent in that slot to be gone. Then he was a Senator for merely four years before becoming President. And also notably for those who act like the DNC simply anoints candidates, he beat Hillary in the primary, despite her being favored by most of the entrenched elite of the party.

And the important thing to remember is this was a startlingly fast political career, considered by everyone to be a meteoric rise, an outlier. He was in politics for only 12 years before becoming President, though he did politics adjacent things even earlier. A more expected career would probably go for 20 to 30 years before becoming President.

So you want voter action for more progressive candidates? It starts a quarter century ago, in state-level offices like the Illinois Senate. It starts by getting those candidates elected over goddamn decades.

Politics is like farming, you can’t show up in harvest season, look around, and go ‘where are all the crops?’ and then be pissy that there’s gonna be a famine this winter. You gotta show up in the planting season, plant those crops, take care of them, keep them healthy and watered and fertilized as they grow, so you can finally get your food when harvest time comes.

So you want to complain about the lack of candidates, well here’s my question: where the fuck were you all in planting season a quarter of a century ago? Cause these crops take a goddamn while to grow.

Mnemnosyne,

Way to miss the point.

The point is his career took twelve years and it was considered a meteoric rise, incredibly fast. You want better candidates, start working for it and help them make their way through the system.

Who’s your representative in your state house? Who was their primary opponent? Did you vote in that primary to try and get a more progressive candidate? Have you worked to get your local community to support more progressive candidates in small offices, so they can eventually become high level candidates?

There’s a chance you can answer those questions and have done what you can, but the vast, vast majority of progressives seem to just complain that no perfect candidate has been delivered to them despite no effort on their part.

Mnemnosyne,

That’s exactly what the agitators and such want - not to get people to vote for Trump which they know isn’t gonna happen, they just want to convince enough people not to vote against him so he wins.

Mnemnosyne,

The big question is how many times to press it. Once at least is a given. It does specify the death as gruesome, so I don’t really want the death, but I’d also like enough money to not have to worry again until a non gruesome death.

Like, if it was painless death, I’d probably say something like 20 or 30 times, but with a gruesome one…maybe 5 max, or perhaps even less. Still, one or two pushes is a given.

Mnemnosyne,

Yeah, seems right. These people seem like shills trying to discourage people from voting against the Republicans, that really seems to be all there is to it. They make any argument they can to discourage people from participating at all.

Mnemnosyne,

Well don’t just drop that and leave it hanging, what did you find out about getting a 900 number to use as your personal phone line?

Mnemnosyne,

There’s definitely a concerted effort to discourage people from voting against Trump by focusing on anything not-perfect about Biden, yeah. I mean, they know they can’t get these people to vote for Trump, that’d be too much for them, but if they can get enough people not to vote against him, then they can tilt things in his favor. And they know that progressives have always been a little bit inclined toward giving up in frustration whenever something isn’t as good as it should be.

Mnemnosyne,

One of the things that really angers me about supposed second amendment supporters is their quiet acceptance of laws infringing on my right to bear any arm that is not a gun. In most states where it is legal to carry guns around, there are way more restrictions on carrying things like knives, swords, polearms, etc.

Mnemnosyne,

Yes, as long as people keep focusing on fighting the technology instead of fighting capitalism, this is true.

So we can fight the technology and definitely lose, only to see our efforts subverted to further entrench capitalism and subjugate us harder (hint: regulation on this kind of thing disproportionately affects individuals while corporations carve out exceptions for themselves because ‘it helps the economy’)…

Or we can embrace the technology and try to use it to fight capitalism, at which point there’s at least a chance we might win, since the technology really does have the potential to overcome capitalism if and only if we can spread it far enough and fast enough that it can’t be controlled or contained to serve only the rich and powerful.

Mnemnosyne,

For a few people, this kind of thinking helps. It does for me, actually. When I feel like my life sucks it can help to compare myself to an imaginary Anglo-Saxon peasant woman during the invasion of the Sons of Lodbrok, and it actually helps to realize just how much better I have it than her.

But that doesn’t work for everyone, and even those it works for kinda need to do the comparison themselves, not have it pushed on them.

Mnemnosyne,

I bet some people flashed that one and such too, but I could find no indication that it was shut down because of that.

It feels like society has backslid tremendously on some freedoms in the past 15 years, particularly where it comes to prudishness.

These days we even have otherwise progressive people jumping on the prude bandwagon along with hyper religious controlling anti feminists and it just makes for such strange bedfellows.

Mnemnosyne,

Gorsuch is the one that, in at least one case, Obergefell vs Hodges, was honest in his textual approach. The law said on account of sex and he ruled based on that.

No idea his record on other things, and it’s probably not as good anywhere he can willfully misinterpret more easily, but at least in that case the text was so unambiguous he could rule no other way.

So civil asset forfeiture may well be another one like that, where the text is unambiguous enough he can’t rule differently because he actually has a line he won’t cross when it comes to completely ignoring the straightforward meaning of the law.

I’m more surprised at Thomas, while also being utterly unsurprised that the ‘liberal’ justice isn’t against it in all forms.

Mnemnosyne,

I mean, that’s a fair criticism in a way. If Bill lets you taste the chicken at that point, it’s reasonable to comment on what he let you taste. If he didn’t think it was ready enough to get your opinion on, he shouldn’t have let you taste it at all.

Mnemnosyne,

One of the few medical things you see on TV that’s a good idea, that pointing the needle upward and squeezing until a bit of fluid has spurted out, to make sure and get the air bubbles out.

Mnemnosyne,

I feel like it should be simpler: did the culture the body came from have good enough records in other ways that we would be unlikely to learn anything by digging up the body that we couldn’t learn by studying other records? Then leave it alone.

If they failed to keep good enough records, and knowledge would be gained by the study, then study away.

Mnemnosyne,

Logically, slavery as punishment for crime is actually pretty reasonable and theoretically good. The criminal isn’t just taken care of by the state, thus costing the people even more, instead, they actually have to pay for their crime by working it off.

But reality intrudes upon this theoretical situation. Since someone benefits from the criminal’s work, there’s now incentive to imprison as many people as possible. It creates perverse incentives that cannot possibly be avoided.

But almost as bad a perverse incentive is the for profit prison system, even if they aren’t allowed to force prisoner labor. Because for profit prisons again have the incentive to imprison as many people as possible since that makes them more money; anything that reduces incarceration rate means less money for them.

Of course, we have both of these going for us. For profit prisons that make more money off the state the more prisoners they have, and the permission to force labor from them since the Constitution specifically allows it, thus letting the prisons make money twice off each prisoner. Yay!

Mnemnosyne,

If it is solved it will definitely be through technology of some sort. While I agree it will not be one brilliant scientist, technology will be the solution.

That technology may come in the form of a way to produce more energy without fucking up the climate, and the engineering and logistical capacity to roll out the change at a breakneck pace.

It may come in the form of simply developing a way to control the global climate directly.

It might come in the form of some technology to control the behavior of humans so that we can actually respond appropriately.

Or it might come in the form of the singularity, when self improving machines grow so far beyond us so fast that they can just do what is needed whether we like it or not.

But one way or another I guarantee that if it’s solved, it’ll largely be a technological solution, because getting humanity to just…stop using energy at our current rate…is just not going to happen.

Mnemnosyne,

Science is blue because in every 4x game I’ve ever played the science icons are some form of blue.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • mdbf
  • everett
  • osvaldo12
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • normalnudes
  • Youngstown
  • Durango
  • slotface
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • tester
  • InstantRegret
  • ethstaker
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tacticalgear
  • Leos
  • anitta
  • modclub
  • khanakhh
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • provamag3
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •