ContrarianTrail Now • 16%
Oh, is that so? Well let me introduce you to two common chants we've been hearing lately which you are familiar with.
"From river to the sea"
"God Is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam"
This isn't about territory. This is about anti-semitism. It's not Israel that's the problem to these extremists, it's the jews.
A genocide is what would happen. A real genocide.
ContrarianTrail Now • 16%
What do you imagine would happen to the Israeli population if we disarmed them, i.e. removed their ability to defend themselves?
Just answer the question.
ContrarianTrail Now • 16%
You're the one who suggested disarming them. Now I'm asking what do you think is going to happen next.
You don't want to answer. We both know why.
ContrarianTrail Now • 20%
I’d be really curious to hear what you imagine would happen to the Israeli population if we removed their ability to defend themselves and why it wouldn’t be october 7th times a million?
You really don't seem to want to answer this question. I wonder why that is.
ContrarianTrail Now • 14%
This isn't about whose fault it was. Killing civilians is equally bad, no matter whose the aggressor and they're both doing it. You can't use that as an argument against Israel.
I’d be really curious to hear what you imagine would happen to the Israeli population if we removed their ability to defend themselves and why it wouldn’t be october 7th times a million?
ContrarianTrail Now • 100%
Rather that, than work in an office, but not exactly that either. I wanted to do something that involves working with my hands, so I became a plumber, but nowdays I've got my own company and do other renovation jobs as well.
ContrarianTrail Now • 44%
You don't get to blame just one side for murdering civilians when both sides are doing it. You're being dishonest. The only reason there aren’t more dead Israeli civilians is because of their world-class air defense systems and their enemy's lack of military capacity.
I’d be really curious to hear what you imagine would happen to the Israeli population if we removed their ability to defend themselves and why it wouldn't be october 7th times a million?
ContrarianTrail Now • 100%
Good news to those watching shorts (I guess) and completely irrelevant information to the rest of us.
ContrarianTrail Now • 33%
No, I meant Ukraine. If Russia was disarmed, Ukraine and probably every other nation as well would just leave them alone. If Israel was disarmed, its enemies would murder every single jew in there.
That's why comparison to Ukraine is more accurate.
ContrarianTrail Now • 75%
My childhood dream job was not working in office.
ContrarianTrail Now • 25%
Disarming Israel will make the war stop just like how disarming Ukraine would make that war stop as well.
ContrarianTrail Now • 29%
Do you really think she chose that shirt specifically to signal her disregard for those children, despite knowing exactly how the media would react? Or perhaps it was just an unfortunate coincidence? Does everyone close to Donald need to be equally terrible?
For all I know, while Donald was threatening North Korea with nuclear holocaust, Melania was campaigning against online bullying. She seems quite reasonable person to me.
ContrarianTrail Now • 100%
They don’t. Rather, they believe that others do, so posts like this are simply signaling alliance.
ContrarianTrail Now • 100%
Eye for an eye makes the world blind
ContrarianTrail Now • 83%
It’s the kind of conflict where the answer to the question "who started it?" entirely depends on how far back you begin looking.
ContrarianTrail Now • 100%
Finland
ContrarianTrail Now • 100%
Hard to say. In my culture even the wealthy don't particularly show off their wealth so it's hard to judge unless we talk finances which we don't. My grandmom's brother died a while back with 300k in the bank. He lived in an old farmhouse and drove a 20 year old car.
ContrarianTrail Now • 94%
It became crime alley after the shooting and they weren't exactly taking a shortcut either but rather exited the theater to the back alley.
ContrarianTrail Now • 63%
Needed to double check that I'm actually still on Lemmy as so many of the top comments made sense.
ContrarianTrail Now • 100%
They're very interesting, but also quite spooky as sometimes it seems to indicate there's two different minds inside your head that are not aware of each other.
If you search for "split brain experiments" you should be able to find more.
The *best* conversations I still have are with real people, but those are rare. With ChatGPT, I reliably have good conversations, whereas with people, it’s hit or miss, usually miss. What AI does better: - It’s willing to discuss esoteric topics. Most humans prefer to talk about people and events. - It’s not driven by emotions or personal bias. - It doesn’t make mean, snide, sarcastic, ad hominem, or strawman responses. - It understands and responds to my actual view, even from a vague description, whereas humans often misunderstand me and argue against views I don’t hold. - It tells me when I’m wrong but without being a jerk about it. Another noteworthy point is that I’m very likely on the autistic spectrum, and my mind works differently than the average person’s, which probably explains, in part, why I struggle to maintain interest with human-to-human interactions.
I personally can't imagine anyone surviving long-term around running zombies. Even if fighting them was relatively easy, it’s statistically inevitable that sooner or later you'd get bitten. This applies to walking zombies too, but at least with them, you have the option to avoid physical altercations altogether, at least for the most part. That’s what I think most TV shows get wrong about zombies: even if there’s just one, and you could easily take it down, just don’t. It’s almost never worth the risk. In my view, the best way to survive is to avoid them as much as possible. Fighting is the last resort and should only be done in self-defence.
They're near-always military NH-90 copters and for some reason fly quite low. I hear one fying over around once a week. Also love the sound of them.
There’s nothing wrong with criticism or calling out bad behavior. However, shouting "ACAB" in a thread about police violence, making jokes about beheading rich people, or throwing "muskrat" comments in discussions about Elon Musk, just to name a few examples, makes you an asshole and part of the reason why social media is so incredibly toxic. If you're doing that while also explaining why you feel that way, then it’s still not the best approach, but at least you're contributing to the conversation instead of just making noise. Throwing out insults without adding substance doesn't challenge anyone or encourage meaningful discussion; it just perpetuates the toxic environment that so many of us complain about.
It's water, isn't it? And second one is food. Well what about the third?
I'll start by acknowledging that this isn’t my idea, credit to Sam Harris. I also don’t know if this is even controversial, but I figured this would be a better place to post than in Showerthoughts. By consciousness, I mean the subjective experience of what it feels like to be. As philosopher Thomas Nagel put it: > 'An organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism.' It’s at least conceivable that things like free will, the self, or even the entire universe could be an illusion. For all we know, we could be living in a simulation and nothing might be real. Even if you don’t believe that, there’s still a greater-than-zero chance you could be wrong. However, this doesn't apply to consciousness itself. Even if everything is just a hallucination, it remains an undeniable fact that it feels like something to hallucinate. To claim that consciousness could be an illusion is a self-contradictory statement as consciousness is where illusions appear.
Do you have a criteria for what qualifies as block-worthy offence or are you just doing it when you feel like it? Bonus question: how long is your block list?
Is it simply: involuntarily celibate, or does it come with a package? To me, "incel" has always meant someone who’s simply just celibate against their will, but it feels like the term now also implies a specific worldview or even a subculture. Does identifying as an incel automatically come with those negative beliefs around gender and society, or should those two have separate terms? Has the definition changed?"
There's no freedom in having to do something but you're also not free to choose your wants. Maybe it's better to just live and let life happen instead of thinking about what could've been. What ever happened is the only thing that could've happened.
I can only imagine the difference it would make if instead of telling about your idea you could show it
ContrarianTrail
lemm.eeIndependent thinker valuing discussions grounded in reason, not emotions.
Open to reconsider my views in light of good-faith counter-arguments but also willing to defend what's right, even when it's unpopular. My goal is to engage in dialogue that seeks truth rather than scoring points.