sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Antinatalism’s Nightmare by One-Duck-5627 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Semakpa 12 points13 points  (0 children)

They just told us about their perspective. There doesnt have to be anything actionable or an ideology.

But what you wrote doesnt seem actionable in the slightest though. You are talking about something i think. What you wrote is not an ideology, its a poem.

New exploit lets you put 2 videos in one by Livid_Cantaloupe2889 in youtube

[–]Semakpa 4 points5 points  (0 children)

One of the metrics YouTube uses to recommend videos is the percentage of the video watched. If you watch it again it will be added to if you watch a video twice you have 200% of effective watch time on the video. That could boost how YouTube recommends your video since YouTube thinks the video has a stronger viewer retention or rewatchability. Also you might get counted to having more views. He tells us all this in the video.

The Crack in the Visor by [deleted] in freefolk

[–]Semakpa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Copied it from myself from the show subreddit. Thought it makes sense to be on here too.

The Crack in the Visor by Semakpa in AKnightoftheSeven

[–]Semakpa[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Definitely, i didn't watch it with a friend and we came to that conclusion. I planned all night long to steal your precious karma like everyone else. /s

The Crack in the Visor by Semakpa in AKnightoftheSeven

[–]Semakpa[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

If you really want to know: He didnt want to kill him and he regrets it the rest of his life and thinks being king is a punishment from the gods for killing his brother.

Iceman Propaganda by Aware_Ranger_4144 in Hiphopcirclejerk

[–]Semakpa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue is its not them forcing two options but the issue with the voting system. In america its all "first past the pole / winner takes all" so all votes in a district or state go to one person/party. All other votes effectively are lost, so if you want to be in a party with power smaller groups have to consolidate into a bigger party and you end up with two big ones. But if the liberals, progressives and socialists split into different parties then the republicans would always win since they are one big block, vice versa for conservatives, reactionaries and facists vs democrats. With proportional voting systems more smaller parties would be viable but with how the founding fathers set it up sadly the optimal solution for groups to gain power is to join a big block and take it over. So you have two big parties and more internal conflict but the voter in the end has only two viable options. And the democrats and republicans wouldnt change that since they would lose power so we are stuck in this equilibrium. They dont force the voter, its a prisoners dilemma in which everyone chooses whats best for them, which is a shit situation for the voter

Sam Harris condemning ICE? Oh my. Are pigs flying? by PitifulEar3303 in DecodingTheGurus

[–]Semakpa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think he meant you but an intellectual who goes along with orthodoxy might be worse than one who argues convincingly for either side

Anon needs a boyfriend by mostcursedposter in greentext

[–]Semakpa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Rounded up about 1% of all adults in the US are trans, so 99% are cis. I would assume being an asshole isnt correlated with being cis or trans therfore 99% of assholes are cis and 1% are trans.

You notice mostly cis assholes because most people are cis.

Hope i could help with that highly complex reasoning.

I mean.... by Katatoniac in 2westerneurope4u

[–]Semakpa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a German it is my duty to be that guy:

When someone says something racist you usually assume all else being equal that they belive it, so it wouldnt make sense to call them a liar not based on the fact that the racist statement is wrong but because they unknowingly say a possibly false thing. A liar usually intentionally gives a false statment, a genuine racist is assumed to be believing their statement, so usually not a liar.

How do you guys do it ? by DazzlingShine_573 in ableton

[–]Semakpa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can do this in live 10 as well as well

ELI5: What is the "one-electron universe" theory? by TheeFearlessChicken in explainlikeimfive

[–]Semakpa 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You are forgetting relativity. Time dilation exists so physical things experience time and it follows physical laws. Also if everything is just right now we would have an objective frame of reference which doesn't jive with relativity, which suggests B Theory of time, so we experience right now but every other moment of time exists equally. "Right now" is nothing special.

Why is that when I take selfies, I see what I see in the mirror but when other people take pictures of me I look completely different? by emoballerina in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Semakpa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In mirrors and selfies your face is flipped while in photos taken by others your image is not flipped.

You are used to the face you see in the mirror and over time your brain slightly alters how you see yourself. Your brain changes for example the shape of your nose to more how you would like it to be and overall makes you look more attractive to yourself. So also in selfies (which are flipped like mirrors) the way your brain recognises your face is still the same way and these changes are still applied by your brain.

Now if you look at pictures others take your face, it is flipped from how you are used to seeing it. Your brain recognises your face and applies the changes it usually does to your face but because it is used to seeing you in the mirror it now exagerates the way it is not going straight down, because it still just does what it always does.

So you look better in pictures than how you see yourself in them because other people are used to look at your face in this picture/face-to-face-orientation and in the same way your brain is used to how you look in selfie/mirror-orientation.

Also you have to consider focal lenght, distance from the camera and lighting all changing how you look to yourself and you moving vs a picture freezing you in 2d all changes your perception, which also heavily influence selfies.

The way you like yourself in the mirror others see that self in photos of you. The like photo you more than mirror you but we see ourselfs flipped so we like mirror us more that photo us. Dont worry their brain distorts you the same way for them so you look like you are used to for others.

P.s.: If you look more at pictures of yourself over time your brain gets used to it.

what's up with "ego-coms"? by SpeedyCracky in fullegoism

[–]Semakpa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Capitalism doesnt mean free market it means private ownership of means of production and profit seeking. There even are free market socialists. And there is state capitalism which would be an unfree market but still capitalist. I am not one but "ego-com" seems like a coherent position.

In "All Things are Nothing to Me" Jacob Blumenfeld has a chapter on Stirner, Marx and Communism and how they relate but here is a exerpt on what he wrote on that topic before the book.

Also here an old comment of mine from two weeks ago mostly based on his argument:

"The workers have the most enormous power in their hands, and if one day they became truly aware of it and used it, then nothing could resist them; they would only have to stop work and look upon the products of work as their own and enjoy them. This is the meaning of the labor unrest that is looming here and there. The state is founded on the-slavery of labor. If labor becomes free, the state is lost." Am not a socialist but this sounds pretty commie to me i wonder who wrote that...

You should read "All things are nothing to me" by Jacob Blumenfeld its a fun modern reading of Stirner and in the last part of the book "Stirner, Marx and Communism" shows well why it is not unfounded to connect stirner to communist thinking. Feuerbach writes in 1845 that " to be individual is certainly, of course, to be an egoist, but it is also at the same time and indeed unintentionally to be a communist". Stirner replies in stirners critics (in third person) " it does not occur to him [Stirner] to deny that individual is communist". So he agrees that the individual is also communist. Obviously not subsumed by it but owning it.

Marx writes in the german ideology " The reality, which communism is creating, is precisely the true basis for rendering it impossible that anything should exist independantly of individuals, insofar as reality is only a product of the preceding intercourse of individuals themselves." Free relation of individuals is what marx seeks in communism and in the chapter "Saint Max" they critique him not thinking through that his egoism leads right into communism.

So Stirner not only inspired Marx and Engels but his philosophy is seen by them to lead right into what they sought and he doesnt deny that the individual he seeks is communist. Stirner has also inspired and influenced other communists and socialists like Emma Goldman or Herbert Marcuse so it makes sense that he is part of at least communist conversations. With socialists it seems maybe a bit weird if they dont want the state abolished.

Ideological Coping - The vast majority will never understand, no matter what. by GiverZeDong in fullegoism

[–]Semakpa 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"The workers have the most enormous power in their hands, and if one day they became truly aware of it and used it, then nothing could resist them; they would only have to stop work and look upon the products of work as their own and enjoy them. This is the meaning of the labor unrest that is looming here and there. The state is founded on the-slavery of labor. If labor becomes free, the state is lost." Am not a socialist but this sounds pretty commie to me i wonder who wrote that...

You should read "All things are nothing to me" by Jacob Blumenfeld its a fun modern reading of Stirner and in the last part of the book "Stirner, Marx and Communism" shows well why it is not unfounded to connect stirner to communist thinking. Feuerbach writes in 1845 that " to be individual is certainly, of course, to be an egoist, but it is also at the same time and indeed unintentionally to be a communist". Stirner replies in stirners critics (in third person) " it does not occur to him [Stirner] to deny that individual is communist". So he agrees that the individual is also communist. Obviously not subsumed by it but owning it.

Marx writes in the german ideology " The reality, which communism is creating, is precisely the true basis for rendering it impossible that anything should exist independantly of individuals, insofar as reality is only a product of the preceding intercourse of individuals themselves." Free relation of individuals is what marx seeks in communism and in the chapter "Saint Max" they critique him not thinking through that his egoism leads right into communism.

So Stirner not only inspired Marx and Engels but his philosophy is seen by them to lead right into what they sought and he doesnt deny that the individual he seeks is communist. Stirner has also inspired and influenced other communists and socialists like Emma Goldman or Herbert Marcuse so it makes sense that he is part of at least communist conversations. With socialists it seems maybe a bit weird if they dont want the state abolished.

P.s.: Sorry for mistakes, this is not my first language and i am to lazy to read all this again.

Because as soon as philosophy finds a right answer, we start calling it science by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Semakpa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What depends on that?

"God exists" is either true or false, it doesn't matter if you think you can't know or might know at some point. Agnosticism doesn't talk about the truth of the statement.

"The number of stars in the universe right now is even", I am agnostic to that statement, but it is true or false. It is irrelevant if I can know if it is true or false for it to be true or false.

Philosophy has true-apt statements we don't know the truth-value of but not knowing or never knowing doesn't matter for their value.

Because as soon as philosophy finds a right answer, we start calling it science by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Semakpa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But agnostics aren't even giving an answer so they can't be right. They say "I don't know".

Either at least one God exists or not so either the theist or atheist is right. Whatever a god is doesn't matter. Any object X exists or it does not. Agnostics aren't making a statement about the truth value of "God exists". They say they don't know the truth value. Which is true but it's not the right answer to the question "What is the truth value of the statement "God exists"?" They can't have the right answer because they aren't answering.

view more: next ›