Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Ag3ma]

snip

In all of these cases, you manufactured a stupid exaggeration or absolute that doesn't exist in reality, and lost your shit because someone tried to point out it wasn't quite that simple, clear or obvious.

It's really not my fault that the world is very complicated, uncertain, with lots of shades of grey, and you don't seem to cope well without absolutes and black and whites.

Just to emphasise how badly you struggle to psychologically tolerate these, it's the fact that you effectively portray us as believing the opposite of you. Usually we're just moderating your absolute into the right shade of grey.

 

[Hades]

No Cruz and Pence aren't big L Liberals, but Taylor Swift supports Abortion rights, and very likely LGBTQ rights.

I have no reason to assume she in particular doesn't but it should be noted that many celebrities know damned well that its just a good business move to be in favor of such things. Its good for your image, it puts your opinion in line with the mainstream and the people against those things are usually such freaks that it makes them look good in comparison.

Vote for Biden based on policy not because Taylor Swift, who happens to be in alignment with the Democrats with abortion tells you to.

Voting for someone just because a celebrity says so is indeed hugely stupid. But if it helps prevent Trump toppling America and betraying the free world then by all means, have her get as many people to vote as possible.

 

[Seanchaidh]

 

[Gergar12]

Is there any law international or UN otherwise to stop say the US if it had a Kardashev type 3 fleet at technology level from claiming every planet in the local group of galaxies.



ChatGPT
Under current international law, notably the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, no country, including the United States, can claim sovereignty over any celestial body, whether it's a planet, star, or galaxy. This prohibition extends to all members of the United Nations who are party to the treaty. Even with a hypothetical Kardashev Type III civilization's capabilities, which would suggest an immense level of technological advancement and energy harnessing capability (essentially controlling energy on the scale of entire galaxies), the fundamental legal principles would still apply.
Key aspects of the Outer Space Treaty relevant to your question include:

1. Non-appropriation Principle: The treaty explicitly prohibits the national appropriation of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. This means that regardless of the technological capability of a nation, it cannot claim a celestial body as its territory.
2. Peaceful Use: The treaty mandates that space exploration be conducted for peaceful purposes, which implies cooperation and possibly shared governance or use of space resources.
3. Use for Benefit of All Countries: The treaty emphasizes that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all countries, regardless of their degree of economic or scientific development. This principle might be especially relevant in the context of a highly advanced civilization like a Kardashev Type III society.

However, it's important to note that the Outer Space Treaty was drafted with the technology and political circumstances of the mid-20th century in mind. If humanity were to reach the level of a Kardashev Type III civilization, it's conceivable that new treaties or amendments to existing treaties would be necessary to address the drastically different context and capabilities.
As of my last update, there was no specific international law covering claims in other galaxies, but the principles of the Outer Space Treaty, especially the non-appropriation principle, would likely be interpreted as applicable universally, not just to our solar system or galaxy. The challenges of governance, enforcement, and interpretation of these laws would increase significantly with the scale and complexity of a Type III civilization's activities.

Note to any future United States Sucessor citizen in year 3000 after we survive climate change, AI, and nuclear weapons. Please build up your space navy and exit these treaties.

Edit: I should note that solar systems with advanced intelligence are excluded from my space colonization plan.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Taylor Swift isn't a Liberal. She's conservative. She is being called Liberal by MAGA. Ted Cruz and Pence are Liberals to them

It's like whenever someone uses the word Capitalist or Cultural Marxist. I can assure you with 99.999% that no who is label with these names are actually any of these things

Cultural Marxist, yeah. Nobody seems to know what that means. But capitalist, eh, that one is easier to apply to people.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Cultural Marxist, yeah. Nobody seems to know what that means. But capitalist, eh, that one is easier to apply to people.

Who can say whether Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk are capitalists? It's a secret to everyone.

 

[Gergar12]

Fuck it I am making another political rant, and I know 90% of you will disagree with me. There... should... not... be... insects in your fucking food.


Fuck the bees. They have 99% of the world to explore, and they pick bakeries where I want to eat my food without an infestation. It's the same damn thing with Canadian geese they were getting hunted down like animals unfairly and now that they are a protected species they are fucking everywhere.

I don't care if they are in my garden, and I am pretty sure I have a hive in my gutters in my house. But food, my home, and results are where I draw the line. Why is this country/the world like this? It's either 0 we have to hunt them all down or 100 they are everywhere, anywhere, all at once. There is no nuance and smart policy anymore.

It's either you are a policy aligned with the fucking Green-Peace & Green Party anti-nuclear Luddites or you're a climate criminal who has 100 private jets, and own billions in fossil fuel stock or a conservative who enables it. No nuance.

I don't agree with Hillary Clinton on everything, but at least she doesn't fuck with my food in terms of bees, Michelle Obama did fuck with my school lunches but I haven't gotten stung eating a donut because of her.

Why does this concern mean, that liberals always win policy fights, and sometimes leftists do too, and this stupid policy of living adjacent to bees is already in multiple countries like Germany, Mexico, and Algeria? It's already in the US with New Mexico, and if you disagree with it your a hating conservative who drinks baby blood. Fuck that.

 

[Gordon_4]

View attachment 10609

Fuck it I am making another political rant, and I know 90% of you will disagree with me. There... should... not... be... insects in your fucking food.


Fuck the bees. They have 99% of the world to explore, and they pick bakeries where I want to eat my food without an infestation. It's the same damn thing with Canadian geese they were getting hunted down like animals unfairly and now that they are a protected species they are fucking everywhere.

I don't care if they are in my garden, and I am pretty sure I have a hive in my gutters in my house. But food, my home, and results are where I draw the line. Why is this country/the world like this? It's either 0 we have to hunt them all down or 100 they are everywhere, anywhere, all at once. There is no nuance and smart policy anymore.

It's either you are a policy aligned with the fucking Green-Peace & Green Party anti-nuclear Luddites or you're a climate criminal who has 100 private jets, and own billions in fossil fuel stock or a conservative who enables it. No nuance.

I don't agree with Hillary Clinton on everything, but at least she doesn't fuck with my food in terms of bees, Michelle Obama did fuck with my school lunches but I haven't gotten stung eating a donut because of her.

Why does this concern mean, that liberals always win policy fights, and sometimes leftists do too, and this stupid policy of living adjacent to bees is already in multiple countries like Germany, Mexico, and Algeria? It's already in the US with New Mexico, and if you disagree with it your a hating conservative who drinks baby blood. Fuck that.

We need bees more than we need doughnuts. Or you or me for that matter.

 

[Gergar12]

We need bees more than we need doughnuts. Or you or me for that matter.

We don't need them in our food, and I don't want them in my baked goods shops.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Based and honey pilled bees. Seize the Kremes of production sisters!

 

[Thaluikhain]

Apparently, the US is rather lax about having insects in food (as in, you open the packaging and inside is X amount per pound), moreso than the Anglosphere in general.

I'm personally not seeing beehives in my bakeries, though, might also be a US thing.

 

[Gergar12]

Apparently, the US is rather lax about having insects in food (as in, you open the packaging and inside is X amount per pound), moreso than the Anglosphere in general.

I'm personally not seeing beehives in my bakeries, though, might also be a US thing.

It’s in a city in Mexico.

 

[Silvanus]

Fuck it I am making another political rant, and I know 90% of you will disagree with me. There... should... not... be... insects in your fucking food.


Fuck the bees. They have 99% of the world to explore, and they pick bakeries where I want to eat my food without an infestation.

It's a bit confusing because of the sign saying "bee-friendly", but for context, those bees are not supposed to be in there. Its not part of a Krispy Kreme initiative or anything.

The "bee-friendly" thing just refers to a new range of honey doughnuts they released, which come with seeds to plant for flowers that bees like. That's all. Separately, a beehive set itself up in this one store in Guadalajara, which wasn't planned or set up by the company or management. Pest control came and removed it. Though its worth noting as well that there's not really much risk to the safety of the products unless you have an allergy.

So yeah. Not "fuck the bees"-- we desperately need them in order for our own species to continue existing, and their population is declining. Plus, it's a bit rich for a human to moan about bees encroaching into a shop, when humans have encroached on every other species' territory about 100,000,000,000 times worse.

 

[Gergar12]

It's a bit confusing because of the sign saying "bee-friendly", but for context, those bees are not supposed to be in there. Its not part of a Krispy Kreme initiative or anything.

The "bee-friendly" thing just refers to a new range of honey doughnuts they released, which come with seeds to plant for flowers that bees like. That's all. Separately, a beehive set itself up in this one store in Guadalajara, which wasn't planned or set up by the company or management. Pest control came and removed it. Though its worth noting as well that there's not really much risk to the safety of the products unless you have an allergy.

So yeah. Not "fuck the bees"-- we desperately need them in order for our own species to continue existing, and their population is declining. Plus, it's a bit rich for a human to moan about bees encroaching into a shop, when humans have encroached on every other species' territory about 100,000,000,000 times worse.

Yes, I am not saying KK Donuts is the only one doing it, I am saying around the world there are lots of bakeries that do have bees and don't care, and that's a bit of a health hazard.

Also, why don't we just not use pesticides that kill bees, that seems like a better solution than making them a protected species which means if they bother me I can't do anything about them.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, I am not saying KK Donuts is the only one doing it, I am saying around the world there are lots of bakeries that do have bees and don't care, and that's a bit of a health hazard.

Also, why don't we just not use pesticides that kill bees, that seems like a better solution than making them a protected species which means if they bother me I can't do anything about them.

What do you mean "can't do anything"? You want to be able to kill the endangered species we rely on to exist, if they annoy you?

 

[Ag3ma]

Also, why don't we just not use pesticides that kill bees

Firstly, because I'm not sure there are bee-friendly pesticides, and I'm not sure we're quite at pesticide-free farming. Most animals have similar stuff going on inside their bodies, more so the closer-related they are. So any broad-spectrum insecticide (and ideally it is broad spectrum, to kill as many pests as possible) is liable to be bad for bees too.

Secondly, because the average farmer that wants to protect his crop and make his money and doesn't give a shit about the bees. He only cares about paying the bills, so whatever's cheapest and works is fine. If all the flowers die in 10 years' time because the insects needed to pollinate them, that's just someone else's problem.

I think it would probably be a good epitaph for the human race: "It was someone else's problem".

 

[Gergar12]

What do you mean "can't do anything"? You want to be able to kill the endangered species we rely on to exist, if they annoy you?

No, I don't want to implement a protected species clause for them, then no one cares when it's been decades and they swarm the places I like similar to Canadian geese. Plus they are insects, some people are allergic, and the main problem isn't that they don't have enough bakeries, homes, etc to bother. It's because farmers and big farms keep spamming pesticides.

Firstly, because I'm not sure there are bee-friendly pesticides, and I'm not sure we're quite at pesticide-free farming. Most animals have similar stuff going on inside their bodies, more so the closer-related they are. So any broad-spectrum insecticide (and ideally it is broad spectrum, to kill as many pests as possible) is liable to be bad for bees too.

Secondly, because the average farmer that wants to protect his crop and make his money and doesn't give a shit about the bees. He only cares about paying the bills, so whatever's cheapest and works is fine. If all the flowers die in 10 years' time because the insects needed to pollinate them, that's just someone else's problem.

I think it would probably be a good epitaph for the human race: "It was someone else's problem".

On this issue, I am a nimby you are correct. I mean they were using my gutters, but okay. The average farmer similar to the average CEO doesn't think in the long term which is why a lot of them keep selling fertile American land to the Chinese, and the Saudis.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

In all of these cases, you manufactured a stupid exaggeration or absolute that doesn't exist in reality, and lost your shit because someone tried to point out it wasn't quite that simple, clear or obvious.

It's really not my fault that the world is very complicated, uncertain, with lots of shades of grey, and you don't seem to cope well without absolutes and black and whites.

Just to emphasise how badly you struggle to psychologically tolerate these, it's the fact that you effectively portray us as believing the opposite of you. Usually we're just moderating your absolute into the right shade of grey.

None of those are greys... There was never any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, literally like everyone has admitted this. You seem to not like that fact for some reason, I have no reason why other than whatever I say is wrong because the facts are there. Masks do nothing outside because stuff like covid or the flu doesn't transmit outside so even a completely sealed hazmat suit doesn't do anything either. Same with sugar being incredibly bad for you.

 

[Ag3ma]

None of those are greys...

Unfortunately for you, yes they are.

But thank you for proving my point.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Unfortunately for you, yes they are.

But thank you for proving my point.

They are facts.