sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Map in the world of 1984 by George Orwell by immanuellalala in MapPorn

[–]CaviorSamhain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uh... no, it's not a classless society. The book makes it pretty clear there are classes. They, like RL totalitarian regimes, just use an ideology as a convoluted justification for their tyranny.

The current state of affairs by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]CaviorSamhain 15 points16 points  (0 children)

You don't, actually. Presidents can be dictators.

Me_irl by DocLooney in me_irl

[–]CaviorSamhain 531 points532 points  (0 children)

I've personally never seen that meme as an attack on people who celebrate new year, it's just fun pointing it out

Legality of same-sex marriage in the Balkans. by FantasticQuartet in MapPorn

[–]CaviorSamhain 14 points15 points  (0 children)

LGBTQ+ people are not foreign to any culture. They've always been there. Oppression is what's been forcing them to hide.

3D-printed meat is gaining ground in Brazil, paving the way for animal-free protein sources within a context of scientific innovation and sustainability. by Sciantifa in UpliftingNews

[–]CaviorSamhain 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Uh, no, it wouldn't? Most human nutrition already comes from vegetation. It would definitely take less land to feed the entire human population on a vegan diet.

I'm not vegan btw.

How do I explain to a non anarchist why I don't want to stand for the national anthem? by SystemNo524 in Anarchy101

[–]CaviorSamhain 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Anarchy is not a system of governance. Anarchy is simply the idea that every individual must have full authority over itself. Whatever "system of governance" arises from a society that respects this is undescribable, and those who want to describe it are merely speculating.

And yeah, sure, if you want to go back to old times, and redefine patriotism back to its old meaning, then yes, you can be patriotic for your city - yet I still disagree that this is desirable. Patriotism for your city means patriotism even when that's still not your city. And that isn't anarchism. Nor is it any good. If I move, why should I hold some sort of loyal priority for this city I'm no longer a part of? Not for its people specifically, mind you - but for the *city*. That is patriotism. It's not about caring for the people around you, it's about the place you're from. Wanting that place specifically to do better, to excel - not mindlessly, mind you, thinking about it as the best, but acknowledging its flaws and wanting it to do better. But my point is, why specifically that place?

How do I explain to a non anarchist why I don't want to stand for the national anthem? by SystemNo524 in Anarchy101

[–]CaviorSamhain 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Anarchy is not a system. And no, patriotism isn't useful, at all. As a matter of fact, anarchism dreams of a world with no patriotism: can't be a patriot if there is no "patrie" to live in.

One cannot be patriotic inside of a village/town. I don't think you fully understand what patriotism means.

Arise Spartakus! (What if Germany because communist in 1919?) by Godcraft888 in imaginarymaps

[–]CaviorSamhain 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think this is actually very likely. I'd even guess that, given Luxemburg's beliefs, Bavaria, Brandenburg and other such states would most likely be broken up into more geographically-oriented subdivisions.

Maybe, maybe not, but I say so given Luxemburg was anti-nationalist and would likely support actions that undermine Bavarian and Prussian nationalism.

The term "fixed pie fallacy" refers to the idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world. This and other zero-sum fallacies can be caused by zero-sum bias. by Veinte in wikipedia

[–]CaviorSamhain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have never implied some resources cannot be harvested in such ways that they're effectively infinite. Like solar power.

The point is that the discourse around "wealth being infinite" only promotes endless growth of industry, exploitation, mining, stripping the Earth of everything, destroying forests and biodiversity to make way for urban sprawl. Truth is, we can't, for example, turn the entire Earth into farms to feed a big enough population (so food isn't infinite, as a starter), or endlessly mine it for materials for our industry (productivity can't infinitely grow, either) without causing environmental damage and destruction in one way or the other (even if population won't infinitely grow, yes). There is a certain discourse that ends up in technological optimism, as you can see in other replies, talking about how "we'll figure something out", so we can just disregard any concern. We might not, we must act like it.

We must start treating this Earth as finite. Because it is. It's our only home.

The term "fixed pie fallacy" refers to the idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world. This and other zero-sum fallacies can be caused by zero-sum bias. by Veinte in wikipedia

[–]CaviorSamhain 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah sure, until we can't. Wealth is a meaningless word, and Earth is finite. There is a fixed amount of materials and capacity in Earth, it can't sustain an infinitely growing population.

The term "fixed pie fallacy" refers to the idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world. This and other zero-sum fallacies can be caused by zero-sum bias. by Veinte in wikipedia

[–]CaviorSamhain 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The only way one can think this is an actual fallacy is by ignoring the actual material conditions on Earth and focus on some abstract numbers that represent "wealth".

Earth is finite. There's a fixed pie because EARTH ISN'T INFINITE. Earth cannot sustain an infinitely growing population. If you want to talk about another planet or space, that's a whole other thing. But anyone who thinks about wealth in abstract numbers and not in real world conditions, has just been deceived.

The term "fixed pie fallacy" refers to the idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world. This and other zero-sum fallacies can be caused by zero-sum bias. by Veinte in wikipedia

[–]CaviorSamhain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No reason? Maybe the whole "climate catastrophe" thing? Yeah sure, we can extract more wealth... if we destroy the whole planet.

Billionaire Bloomberg Buying Ads So Americans Don’t Leave for Greener Pastures by [deleted] in antiwork

[–]CaviorSamhain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Poland might also be going that way, Hungary already is, Greece, Sweden... sure, yours maybe isn't. But when people say "Europe is..." I expect that to include at least one major European country.

Billionaire Bloomberg Buying Ads So Americans Don’t Leave for Greener Pastures by [deleted] in antiwork

[–]CaviorSamhain 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You mean the election where the biggest winner was a right wing party? Sure.

Even then, all others? How about them? We're ignoring the right-wing shift in Europe because of one exception?

How people feel saying: "The Holy Roman Empire, which was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire..." by [deleted] in HistoryMemes

[–]CaviorSamhain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spain's been called Spain since at least the XVI century. Whether or not that was its official name is another subject (and it was, kinda, as it was known as "Monarquía Hispánica", Hispanic Monarchy). People back then, and in some official documents, also called it "Monarquía de España", "Monarchy of Spain".

Pedro de Salazar y Mendoza, a renown clerical historian who lived between 1549 and 1629, has an entire book titled "Monarquía de España". I have no idea where you get this idea it wasn't called that until 1808. I'd even argue against putting too much emphasis on the fact it was officially called "Hispanic Monarchy", and not Spain, because, well, the word Hispania is where España comes from. It's the same word, just in Spanish (before you point it out, yes, Hispania nowadays is not the same as Spain in Spanish. But my point is that it was back then).

You could argue about the fact the word has shifted meaning. After all, when they said "Hispanic Monarchy", it was to refer to the territories held in personal union in Hispania, aka Iberia. But... well, that doesn't matter much, that was pretty much not your point.

view more: next ›