[–] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

1 to 2 Kb isn't all that much. Write it down on acid free paper. Use plain ink with a good binder, neutral pH, UV resistance is generally optional in this case, but better. Better safe than sorry. Store it away from light in low humidity at temps <16 deg C. Seal hermetically. Use oxygen absorbers.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    It's pretty good as it is. But the advantage with Reddit is that there are more niche communities, and those are the only reason I use big social media like Reddit. I'm subscribed to >50 subreddits and never comment. I have access to good information and expert opinion if I can be assed to look for it. Lemmy is more "stochastic" as in there are less people and less communities on here.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    I guess I do! They must be actually gassing Jews and invading Poland during that education! Because that is literally the only possible way for it to be in “living memory” by definition!

    You idiot really believe that the people who voted the nazis in, and celebrated them were like "Oh nooo we did a big bad~~" after they lost? People wanted hitler back after the war. Antifascist consciousness arose only in the late 70's. The whole living memory thesis remains to be horseshit.

    Those material relations have shaped the thoughts and cultures of those countries, to make them less prone to conspiracy theories.

    This is not what I am saying and I do not agree with that. This is complete horseshit still as it hinges on the idea of living memory o algo.

    I’ve been saying this whole time is that it was the material relations that shaped people’s thoughts and ideas!

    You did not.

    Are you claiming that Japan was a stateless society? Or did you just provide me with more evidence that states can improve people’s quality of life?

    this doesn't follow and is bullshit. I said the state apparati did not lengthen life expectancy out of the goodness of their hearts. I said they did it so they have a workforce with which they can "win" in state-state competition. Your thought about the benevolent state is a fiction.

    What have I said that’s “atrocious?” Wanting to remove misinformation? Acknowledging that material relations are a thing that exist?

    Your pro-state top down approach and speech policing is quite horrible, yes. A genuinely unsympathetic and cynical approach to politics that can aptly be described as nannying. Cynical because of the distrust of the organic action of the subjects – workers. You are a real counterpoint to staffordshire beer, in the worst way. I will quit talking to you. No surprise that your moderation history is full of bans.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

    claiming that it’s in the “living memory” for half of Germans is just factually wrong and shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    You have no clue about Germany and you underestimate holocaust education.

    What does “concrete interactions” mean, and how is it different from “material relations?”

    It's not any different and I did not debate the thought of material relations.

    then calling me a “fool” for valuing vaccines so highly is stupid and meaningless.

    I called you a fool because you said they are mankind's greatest achievement. That is objectively foolish

    "Materialism is when you believe in mysticism"

    I did not say that, nor do I believe in mysticism. I believe in investigating that which appears mystical, that was my point. You idiot. Quit putting words in my mouth, you are proving more and more with every message how disingenuous your approach is.

    moralist

    Is it wrong for me to be?

    Yes, science does not operate on morals. You claim to be interested in a social science of sorts.

    The PRC literally doubled life expectancy within a generation.

    So did other countries in (a similar way at least) that developed extremely quickly, like Japan and so on. China is not special and it was in the interest of China to maximise their population potential to get ahead in state-state competition.

    What on earth are you talking about? Please stop “guessing” about my views,

    I don't have to guess your views, they're atrocious enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Lmao, what?? WWII ended 81 years ago. The only Germans who have living memory of it would be like 90. That’s nowhere remotely close to “half of Germans.”

    So living memory is now a property of people who have direct experience of something? Living with the aftershocks of WWII doesn't count? What in the direct realism is this?

    “Irrationality?” So you think these ideas just magically sprung out of nothing? How on earth is this a “materialist” explanation?

    No I am saying irrationality is a type of noise, noise can about from material processes. For you everything has to have an explanation that makes sense. You work from phenomena to the relevant objects instead of considering the concrete objects for themselves and then see how the concrete interactions turn into something bigger.

    No. Based on what you’ve said, there’s exactly one explanation you can use here, which is that there’s some property of some particular object that turns people fascist or communist. Some kind of orb, perhaps, that all the Germans touched and it suddenly turned them into fascists.

    Yes, the particular material objects here are brains, the tools humans use, the environment, etc. You don't understand my argument on a fundamental level and you think of objects as being cars or spoons, which is ridiculous. Idealism, and much of language, ideas, are downstream phenomena that don't mean that much outside of being shorthands for organisation and strategy. For example: try becoming a structured writer without the tools of notetaking, paper, pens, etc., it"s close to impossible. Or a good orator without ever facing a crowd.

    You don't comprehend anything I'm saying, nor do you make an effort to.

    I’m allowed to have an opinion on which accomplishment

    I don't care + same is true for me then, I can have an opinion about your opinion. I can say it's shit. What are you going to do? I give feedback and you can't even be assed to consider what I'm saying. I attack you because you wrong and annoying.

    No, I equate mysticism with being wrong. Because I’m a materialist.

    Foolish and eliminativist, and not what Marx or any relevant thinker meant with mysticism.

    When I talk about the first responsibity of the state, I am talking about what it ought to do, not how it acts in practice. So all of this is irrelevant.

    Moralist. So what have states done in history? Has there ever been a state which wasn't atop major antagonisms? Your oughts don't mean anything, when historically no state ever did jack squat in regards to fulfilling needs of commoners. None. And most would send their citizens into !!!death!!!, i.e. going against the interest of the worker/commoner/what have you, if it meant securing the continued existence of the state apparatus. Let me guess, you are also part of the "real democracy has never been tried"-crowd.

    Ok, so do it then. What’s stopping you? Seems like under the current conditions, we still have antivaxxers and they’re growing instead of shrinking.

    I don't need to do much except for keep doing what I've always did. What a disingenuous way to appeal to constructive criticism.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (7 children)

    Um. Because it’s true?

    This whole living memory thesis is complete horseshit. Half of Germans have the living memory of WW2, maybe not directly, but close enough. Many boomers remember the social unrest of the late 60's to mid 1970's. Yet they vote AfD! Germany is a country that prided itself with being open minded not even 12 years ago, where almost every country bumpkin held onto an antifascist belief of one kind or another. Yet despite having a (like all other memories flimsy) memory, they do a 180.

    This is a pattern, or rather lack thereof, can be observed in revolutionary times as well. The Bolsheviks had to deal with an ultraconservative populace before there were big insurrectionary movements. This changed entirely within a few years.

    You know why that is? Because humans are immediate beings more often than not that have a gigantic capacity of irrationality.

    Material conditions shape thought

    This is in direct contradiction with your OBJECTIONS to my materialism.

    Nothing I have said in any way implies that thoughts simple materialize from nothing or that ideas have some special power or that you arrive at ideas through pure logic or any of that

    No, you talk about intelligence ops by Americans as if they have special power.

    ??? I’m not even gonna take a stab at detangling that. “I’m a materialist, but I don’t reject things just because they’re mystical.” Uhh, ok, sure.

    *untangling

    Yes and this makes perfect sense. You equate mysticism to evil and therefore don't understand when people try to engage with mystical ideas. You are not considering the content of the engagement in any way. All you are doing is attempt at nullifying a fundamentally opposed reading of sociology as this one self contained field.

    If there is ever a case where removing misinformation is justified, this is it. Vaccines are the single greatest accomplishment of human civilization.

    The greatest accomplishment? Are you serious? Do you even know your history of science? Haber process ring a bell? Semiconductors? Agriculture? Refrigeration? Mechanical calculators? Freaking writing? Steel? Concrete? Nuclear reactors? Printing? Cooking? Spacefaring? The internet? Anaesthesia? There is no such thing as a greatest accomplishment you fool!

    Actually, you'd want to get to a point misinformation does not even need to be removed. Where it is seen like the statement 1*1 = 2. That doesn't happen through simple removal of the false content but engagement with it.

    The first responsibility of the state is to protect the people

    The state doesn't give a shit about you unless it can make a buck off of you. The state will exacerbate your poverty very intentionally so that you take even the shittiest of jobs. The state, as led by a class of bureaucrats, has an interest in exploiting its populace. This is immanently baked into the state. The concept of a people is also complete horseshit which ultimately serves to ideologically iron over the extreme differences people have internally. I have much more in common with a Brazilian who's renting their flat than with my landlord. The state owes you nothing and knows hardly any responsibilities except for its survival in state-state competition!

    You view the state as a neutral object, that can either function to this or that interest's end. But this is simply not true. Antivax rhetoric doesn't harm people, it's the inherent impossibility of state led education to ensure that people don't fall for it in the first place, also the nature of work is one where people don't learn to a sufficient extend if work became more diverse and interconnected, also less demanding, people would be much more adept in their general cognitive approach. Professor Dave for example has done the job of thousands of teachers and then some in combating vaccine misinfo – the state could never. You wish to be led by a benevolent ruler, a Zohran, but you don't comprehend how choosing your rulers only affirms rulership over subjects instead of becoming self empowered. Yours is a completely faulty way of thinking if your interests are that of the working class. You are ignoring how people, at the mid to lower rungs, can empower themselves cognitively.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)

    but if you claim to understand social relationships and see them as worth studying, then you’re saying that you’re doing sociology right there

    Nope, That is very abstract conception of sociology I am sure most sociologists wouldn't share. And Marx wasn't all about social relationships, he was just as much a philosopher of science, and that includes biology and physics and so on, a determinist even! Due to his materialism. As he grew older and more refined he also became more materialist and determinist in his thinking.

    “As if?” Nothing I said could even remotely be construed as implying they couldn’t!

    Why the hell do you then say this?!

    "that cultures that have the memory of first getting vaccines in living memory tend to be more favorable towards vaccines and less prone to conspiracy theories about them,"

    By what in my previous message?

    "You are treating ideas that exist only in particular times and cultures as inherent things that will naturally arise out of the existence of particular physical objects. That's nonsense. Those ideas come from culture and social relations"

    The last part, "That's nonsense. Those ideas come from culture and social relations" treats it as a closed loop and that is bullshit. In fact the mind and ideas are constantly regenerated by physical inputs, that is why false memories are so easy to condition. So yes, everything "naturally" (I hate that word) arises out of physical objects and these words here are ephemera if they're not being tested against concrete physical reality constantly. I can't purely logic myself into the right thoughts to come to correct views about the world, it has to be connected to the tangible and if anything ideas that exist primarily through the exchange between people are a weak shadows of that tangible reality.

    It’s mystical, but you don’t reject it?

    Just because things are mystical, doesn't mean I have to reject them completely, just because something almost leaves a bad taste in my mouth doesn't mean I shouldn't engage with it. Economics is very crucial, I hate it! It is mystified and stupid! But I engage with it and take it seriously non the less because I am an antimoralist.

    Also your approach to vaccine denialism just being regulating speech is in fact pure paternalism with a little education thrown in. Thought I might add that before nodding off.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (11 children)

    First nowhere did I perform a complete rejection of sociology, in fact I even incorporated the idea of culture into one of my responses to your OBJECTIONS https://lemmy.ml/post/54374193/28498142

    And nowhere do I flat out ignore social relations, which you vaguely throw into the discussion. I understand and respect those probably better than you do as evidenced by my not citing them willy nilly. And sociology is absolutely mystical, biologists laugh at most sociology, so do physicists and mathematicians. Durkheim's book on suicide is absurd shit! The protestant work ethic thesis is an utterly crazed idea, and some people still hold on to it! To appropriate a Marxist term, and in the eyes of a sociologist a sociological term, sociology is mostly a petty bourgeois jerk between professors with very little practical applicability.

    The cultural memory stuff is mostly BS and contradicted by your appeals to the temporally changing rate of vaccine denialism in western countries. As if these societies couldn't be swayed by future social dynamics. This priming idea, that somehow having the right vaccine **first **is deeply meaningful, is charitably put a very rigid conception of the dynamics at hand.

    What you’re doing is some bizarre, vulgarized form of materialism that disregards entirely material relations and the long term effects of material events on people’s thought processes

    It's not vulgar, it is very sophisticated in fact. You believe ideas have a special power, as evidenced in your previous message, I am saying they don't really. That is materialism. Matter over mind.

    Also the false equivalence of chemical relations with social ones is nagging me.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    I liked OkCupid's question system, but since that place has become unusable there is no good way of meeting people online without investing considerable effort sifting through discord servers and whatnot. I had high hopes for Matrix, but Matrix turned out to have a fair share of rooms full of really mentally ill people set on evading moderation.

    I'm not talking about romantic or sexual dating, that is not the aim. So far I've only met one person online who proved to be a consistent friend.

    The whole conundrum is so troubling to me that I have started thinking about building a crude matching algorithm and using that for a FLOSS chatting site that doesn't have pictures, bios, searchable profiles and all that jazz. Just: 'yes'/'no' and 6 pt scale questions. Maybe also a contrast mode to discover radically different people. The biggest obstacle here would be certain legal questions (especially around liability.)

    Before I start doing that I want to ask if anyone here knows of a decent site to meet people.

    view more: next ›