Avatar
hh
82bdee506e769ebc94ee2f362d07c1960dce40bac650d826a42f8e0c019c3c96
In principle, no.
Replying to Avatar Gigi

GM

It's simply not possible to not say GM to an Eva Green picture. You cheat.

Good or bad - it's sticky as hell.

Three days ago I went on a business trip that involved a relatively long solo drive, and I made the huge mistake of putting on a playlist that I knew has this in it:

https://youtu.be/TAqZb52sgpU

Three days later, it's still stuck in my head 24/7

No, not any more. But for instance they still can't institute marriage-equivalent legal relationships, which affects their property rights as far as inheritance and so on goes.

Oh yeah of course. Even in Chinese-majority Singapore there's a lot of puritanism and, for instance, homosexuals don't have full rights. So imagine how it's going to be in any muslim country.

EU is way ahead of the US in its deployment of a technofascist regime.

For two decades I tried to get a job and move to the US. Finally now I got the job, but I keep refusing to move. Europe is a cesspool, but the US isn't better anymore. Tolerable alternatives must be found.

While the piece as a whole is very obviously climate religion hysteria BS and contains false affirmations, the specific claim can also be true.

They're not saying 12% of Americans eat all the beef eaten in the US -- only half of it. The other 88% of beef-eating Americans consume the other half.

It seems plausible.

Replying to Avatar rabble

I don’t actually get why this is a problem. We’ve got 8 billion people right now. We don’t need that many people to run the economy. As new tech continues to develop we get more productive. If we steadily grow in productivity we can produce the same economic output with fewer people. The income and wealth per capita goes up. In the case of Japan their GDP is flat but the the Japanese people are better off because that same GDP is spread out to fewer people.

With the environmental impact of humanity, it’d be a lot lower with 2 billion instead of 8 billion people but we could have higher quality of living.

And isn’t this the best way to reduce population? Slowly through people having fewer kids? Want to have a lot of kids. Go for it. Most women are choosing fewer kids as they get more economic and social power. It’s a hell of a lot better than China’s one child policy, disease, war, or famine.

Yes we need to pay people to take care of the elderly. But we could do that the way Singapore does it. They don’t tend to put the elderly in institutional care. Instead they pay family members to take care of their elderly. Just like raising kids in a family is be than an orphanage, or other group child raising like happens in some christian communes and kibbutzes. Most people provide better care of their parents and grandparents than any nurse in an institution could. And it’s a hell of a lot cheaper, it’s just there is no companies pushing for these polices like there is for care homes.

We can handle massive reductions in population over a few generations humanely without destroying the economy.

We need more people to be able to colonize space. Either through technological hyperdevelopment that leads to transhumanism (the option I think the most probable) or through sheer biological means. In the first case because we simply need more brainpower to reach such technological level, and in the second also because only a tiny fraction of us will ever be able to leave.

The problem with that is that it sounds like the "government" decides who is a hater, wastrel or gimp, and take their rights away at will. The solution is to dissolve the government, so not being able to "participate" doesn't become a real hindrance. But that takes us to my original point.

The BRICS narrative is probably the most retarded narrative the US-based international pro-Putin far right has ever come up with. It's up there with Pizzagate and QAnon.

nostr:note1aqdphprcppx3dcv5cz9cjvt7rue387y83u407cr5g2cwkaafyaeqnvdthx

bUT muH BRiCs!!!

nostr:note1scjgdja3gnx427vkgvny66ka9mf8md53xw8k2t26mfktytqxxu2sxa2gmd

In a just society, those who want to be ruled and thus be irresponsible underaged children forever should be able to do it while respecting those who want to take responsibility for their own lives.

The problem is that for those who abrogate the role of rulers over the cattle-people for themselves cannot tolerate the mere existence of non-cattle self-responsible humans.

This is an irresoluble conundrum especially in the West with our "equal before the law" delegated universal voting system, because the State cannot afford different sets of rules to different individuals. As a consequence, free individuals can only attain freedom by forcing the cattle people to be free too.

And they simply will never accept it.

nostr:note105nv7aj9f2y7243ksc55gsahfch343mmkz49a6eng777xeyk7rfqnplv2d

By this reasoning, the US government as a whole should be indicted, since it builds, operates and maintains roads that are used for "transmitting" funds from all sorts of illegal activities.

Also, he has a very important lesson for the censors, the grifters and the wannabe "content creators" who think they are entitled to something: principles are first.

It's not Bitcoin or Nostr. It's the reasons for which they exist.

If you violate the principles, people will simply move on.

UFC fighter has a lot to teach Nostr and Bitcoin promoters about marketing.

https://youtu.be/GulhoqyiptI