MaeBorowski [she/her]

  • 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 22nd, 2022

help-circle
  • MaeBorowski [she/her]@hexbear.nettoScience Memes@mander.xyzBreast Cancer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Typical hexbear reply

    Unfortunately, you are right

    Yes, typically hexbear replies are right.

    It’s not unfortunate though, it’s simply a matter of having an understanding of the world and a willingness to accept it and engage with it. It’s too bad that you seem not to want that understanding or that you lack the willingness to accept it.

    My science is not. I like my bubble.

    How can you possibly square that first short sentence with the second? Are you really that willfully hypocritical? Yes, “your” science is political. No science escapes it, and the people who do science thinking themselves and their work is unaffected by their ideology are the most effected by ideology. No wonder you like your bubble - from within it, you don’t have to concern yourself with any of the real world or even the smallest sliver of self reflection. But all it is is a happy, self-reinforcing delusion. You pretend to be someone who appreciates science, but if you truly did, you would be doing everything you can to recognize your unavoidable biases rather than denying them while simultaneously wallowing in them, which is what you are openly admitting to doing whether you realize it or not.



  • The image in OP is what is toxic. Fostering a kind of echo chamber where the people who disagree with the prevailing narrative and bring reasoned arguments that contradict it get written off as “foreign agents” is extremely toxic, also nationalistic, and often borderline racist. It’s also childish. Pointing out how childish it is to tell someone “you’re just a RuSsIaN bOt!” because you don’t like what they have to say is definitely not toxic, quite the opposite.


  • What a laughable deflection. Politicians give a shit what the voting public in aggregate does, dipshit. If they don’t give a shit what you think, why are you advocating for one half of them? Why are you trying (and failing so bad it’s funny) to argue that people should vote for one team of them that you think are “less bad”?

    but I’m not so far up my own ass that I don’t care about the consequences of my actions.

    Like, do you really not care that you completely contradict yourself from one comment to the next, or hell, from one sentence to the next?

    More people will die if Trump wins, and that is all that matter to me.

    Meanwhile Biden & Harris fund a literal, undeniable genocide. You are such a clown I’d think it was impressive if it weren’t so disgusting.

    If you think that’s supporting genocide then you can take you sick bizarro logic and shove it up your ass.

    Yeah, refusing to vote for genocidaires is “sick, bizarro logic” but sending them your approval by voting and stanning for the genocidaires is “fighting fascism.” Nah, you can take your sick, twisted, fascist-apologist illogical rationalizations and shove them up your ass, you sycophantic loser.


  • And serious, how can you not understand even after RvW that doing nothing is still better for you than what the Republicans will do.

    The republicans do it anyway!! The republicans do what they want, the democrats allow them to while raking in donations by telling everyone how mean the republicans are! It’s not that the democrats are better because they don’t do bad things but republicans do, it’s that they are both parts of the same machine that does these things, playing their respective roles! How can you be so fucking blind as not see the blatant “good cop/bad cop” routine for what it is?? And yet you are calling other people morons (ableist language by the way, asshole) for trying to get this very obvious reality through to you!


  • Doing other things than voting doesn’t stop you from voting. It takes 5 minutes every couple years. It is literally the least you can do

    Voting for someone abetting a genocide (Biden, Harris) is endorsing that genocide. If the democrats win an election after funding a genocide, what kind of mesage is that sending all politicians, whether you like them or not? It’s telling them that they can commit genocide without repercussion, they can commit genocide and still have the support of the voting public. Voting for genocidaires (let alone defending them and trying to get others to do the same) makes you complicit in the current genocide as well as the ones that are sure to follow due to green light given to those who perpetrate them. You’re telling Democrats and any other politicians “as long as you give lip service to the things I care about - no need to follow through on them btw - then you can go ahead and murder entire nationalities and ethnic groups the world over, it’s ok, I’ll still vote for you.” Fucking disgusting.


  • There will be more after Trump and Netanyahu, and I will fight them as well. I will fight every fascist at every opportunity every time.

    Why aren’t you fighting the other half of the exact same fascist machine then? Instead you insist on carrying water for the fascists that put on a civil facade. That’s not fighting fascism, that’s aiding it.

    Why won’t you?

    Oh fuck OFF. Nakoichi just fucking told you they have been doing REAL work to fight fascists for over 2 decades, but you completely ignore that. Such obvious bad faith.



  • Yeah, this is silly (and fun) but avoids the real problem of course. The question can be like you said, “which came first, the chicken or the chicken’s egg?” And for those that still want a literal answer, wikipedia says:

    If the question refers to chicken eggs specifically, the answer is still the egg, but the explanation is more complicated.[8] The process by which the chicken arose through the interbreeding and domestication of multiple species of wild jungle fowl is poorly understood, and the point at which this evolving organism became a chicken is a somewhat arbitrary distinction. Whatever criteria one chooses, an animal nearly identical to the modern chicken (i.e., a proto-chicken) laid a fertilized egg that had DNA making it a modern chicken due to mutations in the mother’s ovum, the father’s sperm, or the fertilised zygote.

    As an alternative, though it’s a bit more of an ungainly mouthful, I like: “which came first, the first species to lay an egg or the egg of the first species to lay an egg?” That one is a bit harder but you might still be able to tease out an answer. That way I think it gets a bit more into the problem of qualitative vs quantitative when you do (which is partly why I say below that this is related to the problem of the heap). Of course it’s really meant to be a philosophical problem anyway, and in that sense, it remains a paradox. It’s a way of making an analogy for a “causation dilemma” and gets at the idea of infinite regress and the paradoxes that brings up. It’s also related to the sorites paradox or the problem of the heap, which actually is an element discussed in Marxist (more because of Engels) dialectics.