daltotron

joined 5 months ago
[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 2 points 16 hours ago

yerp, I partially think that was necessary for this route (which probably would've happened agnostic to either party), since central california does a shit ton of agriculture.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

do you not think, that potentially, they just go the indentured servitude route, after holding people for the "crime" of illegal immigration?

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago

I would like to point out that this is just what robin hood is

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

basically, the US is a one party system, but it has two parties

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

some of us make good pets, some of us make good masters, the main problem I'm having right now is that it lacks the kind of erotic kind of framing that I tend to prefer

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Use illogical, bad faith arguments to trick them into believing that the sky is blue, of course. People fall for horrible stupid dumb propaganda, it's the nature of humanity. Only like 5% of people are really gonna bother to go actually read studies and shit, I don't even really do that, I just look at the abstracts and then hope that the scientists didn't fuck up and run the study wrong or engage in p-hacking or something. I couldn't afford to go to college and take a statistics course, and my only form of education beyond that is watching 3brown1blue videos at 2x speed interspersed with useless escapist brainrot.

Everyone wants to believe that humans are some highly logical computer creatures that can just be convinced if we get hit with enough rigorous logical argumentation. We're really not. You can make something much more convincing to someone if you validate their ego, or if you incentivize someone into believing a certain kind of truth as a result of their survival in a certain context, right. Even if we were purely logical beings, that wouldn't even really solve the problem, because we're all exposed to vastly different information landscapes, i.e. every MAGA guy you run into has probably be tweaking out to AM radio for 8 contiguous hours at their job, or socializing with a bunch of insularly sexist, homophobic, or racist good old boys in an echo chamber for most hours of the day, or whatever else, right. So, what hope can you have to change their minds over the course of a 1 or 2 hour conversation? If even that. And double this for everyone out there that spends their time listening to NPR, or has milder takes about things, or even just spends their time passively absorbing whatever propaganda floats at them through pop culture and escapist media consumption.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well that's why the point of arguing with other people isn't really to convince them, but just to make yourself smarter and more informed by reading 200,000 pages of government legislation for fun, like it's just another tuesday. Light work for a person like you

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is false actually. Any claim can be dismissed and evidence doesn't matter because nobody cares. The best way to convince people of things is with cheap psychological parlor tricks

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

I just mean that I don't think they were a good faith interlocutor. Probably if I were to put a specific explanation on it, I'd say that they are probably tired of having the same argument over and over again and being corrected repetitively, to the point where they're not genuinely engaging anymore, I've seen that a lot. Especially with how quickly they backed out but also still left a comment. I dunno if that level of bad faith would be considered trolling in the strictest sense, but I would probably still classify it as such.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean arguably we could've done all of that with nasa if nasa had received a similar level of funding to SpaceX, but that's kind of getting into alt-history.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

Depends on the writer. You get a superman DC writer, homelander probably gets treated like every other fascist superman beats up. If it's a "the boys" writer, homelander probably uses kryptonite to rip superman in half in a graphic full-page spread or some shit. You're also gonna be dealing with, are we dropping superman into the relatively hopeless universe of the boys, are we dropping homelander into the DC universe, where he'll probably be right st home with like 30 different characters almost exactly like him, will we come up with some portal stuff, what's going on there

So I dunno, depends on the writer. Ke personally I'd prefer if superman won, cause it's more hopeful and less garth ennis-y.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I believe they are what is known as a "low effort troll"

view more: next ›