all 67 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 92 points 7 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 25 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    That's the most based thing I ever heard about the French tbh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Then you do not know much about the French!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    For every revolution against oligarchs, there is a country that was fucked over by their imperialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

    I think that doesn't answer anything at all, like yeah the french did a lot of bad things in history, doesn't mean they didn't do based things too.

    Can you name a few revolutions against oligarchs? And do I read it right that you think that every time the French fucked over the revolutionaries?

    Interesting but wild take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    do know what "the french" is. However, the french state is like leader in overthrow government :

    I just dig in the article "françafrique" of wikipedia. It does not cover economic interventionism on domination, like through logistics or uranium extraction. For example a massive strike in Tchad has been counter by sending 2 billions euro to the dictator in order to keep things running. At the same time, Macron was whining to get 2 the same amount for the healthcare. You could find a lot of things about this infamous state deeds on the website "survie", and support their amazing work.

    (notice that we didn't speak of Algeria, Lybia, Indochina, Kanaky, and a lot of other event)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I clicked the first: like 75 years ago. Okay.

    I clicked the last: "The helicopters laid a trail of food, water and medicine enabling refugees to escape into eastern Zaire."

    What has this to do with overthrowing oligarchs? Learn to follow the thread instead of just hate bash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I show you where to look, you could refuse to do so It's okay to be coward, but don't show off.

    • Barkane bombing civilian, enforcing dictatorship
    • Military intelligence giving intel to let Egyptian bomb civilian coming from Palestine
    • Caesar canon used to bomb civilian in Yemen
    • Village mobilize against ore extraction in Tchad bombed by french air force
    • Allowing weapon during kanak mobilization, to let colon armed themselves, and covering them when they kill, and deporting kanak that want the peace treaty to be respected

    All this event took place recently, and we just scratching the surface because it took time to investigate, specially when it's covered by the state confidentiality

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 41 points 7 months ago (30 children)

    When a kid says "meme" when they mean "image macro"

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] [S] 18 points 7 months ago (27 children)

    I can't tell if you're messing with me or if you actually don't know the one intelligent thing that Richard Dawkins has ever said

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (22 children)

    Wait, we don't like The Selfish Gene? Seems to be a good idea, at least from the evolutionary perspective if not the sociological one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I don't mind The Selfish Gene so much as I hate Richard Dawkins for being a misogynistic transphobe who hung out with Epstein after his first conviction. For an enlightened rational athiest, he is quite narrow minded about science that doesn't agree with his reactionary worldview.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (18 children)

    Scientifically, no. The selfish gene he posits is on the level of saying you only use 10% of your brain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (16 children)

    How so? Wikipedia and most sources near the top of DuckDuckGo seem to think that the idea is generally well-received, with a few minor quibbles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (15 children)

    The biggest problem with the book is that Dawkins demonstrates that the gods are living, evolving ideas which have developed over time to the point of being able to exert agency on the world... And then remains an atheist. Instead of concluding, as Terry Pratchett liked to joke, that the gods are alien intelligences created by humans through worship.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    I don't understand what you're trying to say here. How does your last sentence flow from your first? I think most atheists would agree with the notion that gods are ideas passed down over generations. They're not real things that actually exist, but like anything people believe, the very idea of them exerts an influence on society...which we see every time a government passes a law based in religious ideology, like anti-LGBT or anti-abortion laws.

    None of that even seems very controversial. Unless you're a believer in a literal god or gods, I'm not sure where the problem is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    That guy is pretty much Baudrillarding that people live in the world created by media — including folk communication like memes in this case — so if this collective consciousness says something is true, it might as well be.

    (You might want to tag the user, as they regularly say pretty weird stuff, this one is rather mild for them. Or don't and let yourself be surprised.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Sorry when you say "that guy", you're talking about Dawkins or the person I was conversing with here on the fediverse? Because to be honest I didn't think they were saying anything that didn't seem pretty much in line with what I was already agreeing with them about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    you're talking about Dawkins or the person I was conversing with

    The commenter.

    The difference between you and them is they're saying it doesn't matter whether Jesus or God actually physically ever existed and actually did what's ascribed to them — but, if people believe that they do or did then Jesus and God effectively exist(ed) as far as people can tell. It's kind of a variation on solipsism where the noosphere dictates the effective perceived reality instead of any one individual mind.

    As I mentioned, you can catch a further glimpse of their peculiar worldview if you peruse their previous comments, but this particular take here is probably the most comprehensible I've seen from them so far.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    The idea of a god is a god. Jesus actually exists, He's a psychological parasite living in the collective imagination of humanity. And He influences the world through His followers, who are sworn to serve Him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)

    The idea of a god is a god

    I mean, sort of? That statement isn't literally true, but taken metaphorically it basically matches what I said.

    Jesus actually exists

    Scholarly consensus is that he was indeed a real person who actually existed, but he obviously didn't perform the actual literal miracles described in the bible.

    He’s a psychological parasite living in the collective imagination of humanity. And He influences the world through His followers, who are sworn to serve Him.

    Yeah, sure. He doesn't literally live, but the idea of him has a powerful effect, so metaphorically you could say he influences the world through his followers.

    Unless you're getting into some really fucking weird mumbo jumbo bullshit and you're trying to claim it is actually absolutely literal that he exists and exerts a force on the world directly, I don't see where you and I are in disagreement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

    Well then you believe in all the gods. Elohim, Thor, Ra, etc. right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    Umm, no, I don't believe in any gods. The only effect gods have is the effect caused by people acting in accordance with their belief, shared down through the ages and evolved at every stage by the culture it's a part of, in those gods.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    Gods are like money. They only exist because people believe in them. But they can still have an effect on the world because of how that belief works. For example, I think money makes people more selfish. Money creates billionaires and drives them to run sweatshops and bribe politicians. Money made the oil industry, money is destroying the world.

    Do you believe money is capable of agency, of changing people's behaviour, like I do? Or do you think it's just people acting on their own based on their belief in money, and money itself isn't making any of the decisions?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    First I'd start out by saying I don't think money itself "only exists because people believe in" it. Rather, money itself is definitely a real thing, but it gains its value from people's belief. Maybe you consider that semantics, but I would say we're already deep in the weeds of semantics.

    Anyway, money is inanimate. It can't per se change people's behaviour. We might occasionally metaphorically talk about it as though it does, but in reality it is, as you suggest, "people acting on their own based on their belief in money".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Money is the value of money, not the paper. If you're saying money is a piece of paper, that's like saying Jesus is a little wooden statue of a man on a cross. If money most definitely exists outside of belief (as a piece of paper), then Jesus most definitely exists outside of belief (as a piece of wood).

    But that's not what I believe. I believe money is the idea of money's value, and Jesus is the idea of Jesus' values.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    Jokes on you, the French word for a meme is a moimoi

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Mémé means Grandma in French and pisse-mémé is herbal Tea - such a lovely language ...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago
    [–] 13 points 7 months ago

    "Cat, I farted"

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago
    [–] 19 points 7 months ago

    Oh my fucking god! You can't just say fr*nch on the internet!

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Oh man, this was like a sleeper code for the Dexter's Lab core memory lol

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago
    [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    Honhonhonhon

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago
    [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    french nationalists? You mean ⅓ of adults in France?

    fuck them

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments