• 0 Posts
  • 106 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2024

help-circle

  • leadore@lemmy.worldtoPrivacy@lemmy.ml[Deleted]
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    23 days ago

    I have a small camera (a little smaller than a phone) that can do photos and videos.

    The phone will be powered off before leaving the house and only turned on if absolutely needed to make a call. Hopefully that’s enough for no GPS/cell tower tracking, right? Don’t need to wrap it in foil?




  • This is bizarre. The info provided in the question was that Marty ate more than Luis, the question was how would that be possible given that Marty ate 4/6 of his while Luis ate 5/6 of his. The answer the kid wrote (Marty’s pizza was bigger than Luis’) is the only possible correct answer.

    The grader is asserting that the information given in the question was wrong and that “actually it was Luis who ate more pizza”–even though it stated as a premise that “Marty ate more”. How are you supposed to give a correct answer on a test if you are expected to accept one premise (proportion of pizzas eaten) while disregarding another premise (Marty ate more than Luis)? How do you decide which part to disregard? Would they have accepted the answer, “Luis actually only ate 3/6 of his pizza, not 5/6)”? Wouldn’t that be just as valid an answer as “Marty actually didn’t eat more than Luis”?







  • Here’s my view:

    The North American colonies of the European imperialists had one very significant difference from the other colonies of the European imperialists: when the European imperialists came over here and proceeded to brutally colonize this continent, and brought their slaves from Africa over here to work for them and send the products back to Europe, it was the European imperialists over here who rebelled against the European imperialists over there, and won.

    So IOW when America/USA got its independence from the European imperialists, it was really just another group of European imperialists owning and running the new country. They still had the slaves so they just kept on going with the slavery along with continuing the genocide of the original inhabitants. The European imperialists in Europe lost their slaves and land to the American group of imperialists.

    Whereas when the other colonies of the European imperialists in South America, Africa, etc. got their independence, it was the original inhabitants of those places who got their own countries, not just another group of European imperialists taking over from the previous group.

    So Europe’s age of imperialism finally petered out and they moved on. Now they can sniff and tut-tut and pretend they are definitely not racist and would never, ever act like those horrible American imperialists. But it’s been Europeans and their descendants who have been in charge over here the whole time. This democracy was only ever intended to be a democracy by, of and for those white males (at first only white male landowners).

    The reason things are falling apart now is that in their view, non-white males have gotten way too close to having too much power, and they can’t have that – that would be real democracy for all instead of the white-males-only democracy they want. Barack Obama winning the presidency totally freaked them out, inspiring the Tea Party movement which grew to become the maga movement and eventually took over the entire republican party. So now trump and the oligarchs are back in control. Phew!, they’re so relieved. But we outnumber them (which is why they want to purge non-whites and make white women have more babies). Who will win?


  • leadore@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldViolence
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    That’s my point and why I say they didn’t do the cartoon right. If they wanted to say what you explained, we’d have to see the first person answering “no”. As it is, the cartoon implies that anyone who says violence isn’t the answer is lying/hypocritical.


  • I understand what the cartoonist is trying to imply–that there are no true pacifists and people who say they’re against violence are hypocrites who actually like violence when it’s used to protect their privileged position. They just didn’t do it right.

    First, true pacifists do exist, who would answer “yes” to the first two questions–and which would make the last question ridiculous. So if the cartoonist’s goal was to criticize the hypocrites, they just needed to show the first person answering the first two questions with an unqualified “no” to show they didn’t really mean what they said in the first panel.


  • leadore@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldViolence
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    First panel: I agree with the aspiration to avoid violence but allow for circumstances like self-defense or defense of a vulnerable party.

    Second panel: I do agree we shouldn’t give them weapons, at the least not lethal weapons, certainly not military-grade weapons.

    Third panel: If you want to be capable of preserving your national sovereignty, having a military is required, therefore justified in that context.

    Fourth panel: While the two previous questions logically follow from the position stated in the first panel, the last question makes no sense and is a complete non-sequitur from the stated position. [i.e. “Violence is never a solution” --> “oh, so do you mean it’s a solution in this one case? !? !” <–non-sequitur]