I believe in it, but only because things have occurred to me that cannot be explained by science.

And even those that have occurred to me I doubt some of, but those that happened to me and those with me simultaneously? That I have a harder time explaining.

Just 2 examples I can think of, out of multiple:

With all that said, despite everything that’s happened to me, ironically I’ll be the biggest skeptic you’ll meet when something strange does happen, or when watching those ghost videos or such. I think the grand majority of ghostly sightings are probably just hypnogogic hallucinations. I think the huge majority of online videos and photos are faked, and explain how they can be faked easily (helps that I worked in one of those Halloween houses setting things up).

I don’t think belief in the paranormal is by default irrationality, and I personally cannot state that without being a hypocrite after what has happened to me. I think belief without skepticism is, however, irrational. If anything, my experiences pushed me heavily into the sciences growing, looking for possible explanations for them.

And therefore to me, it is only logical for someone who has not experienced something unexplainable in any possible way to by default doubt the paranormal. That should be the default. Everyone should be a skeptic until it happens to you.

But it’s also left me pondering - how do you, rationally, test for these things? If they are actually uncommon - the true paranormal events without explanation - how would you go about setting up an experiment? Nevermind getting enough samples to test for - most of these things just happen suddenly. A lot of events that are actually unexplainable happen without warning, with no ability to control when it might occur. And that’s before adding in that some of these things might have the possibility of human level intelligence and/or be malicious.

I think something is occurring in regards to the paranormal events. I just don’t think we have the technology yet to figure out what. Sure for now we have names like ghosts and ghouls and so on. But maybe eventually in the future we’ll be able to explain the things even better - particularly the ones without current explanation I’m referring to - and then it’ll just be another thing, much like miasma simply became bacteria and viruses and so on

Same since I can’t see tags 😂

I thought XXX Chromosome was fine?

No, what’s messed up education in Finland is that it’s much, much harder now to fail and hold back a student. The semi-equivalent of the USA’s No Child Left Behind policy.

Schools here in Finland still use plenty of books, and at least they still teach how to use computers, like typing lessons, unlike the USA.

Here in Masala they even started teaching classes about detecting AI use, it’s usage in propaganda, and privacy on the internet plus usage of AdBlockers in elementary school. My wife gave the lessons - though she changed it up on the second one after seeing that kids don’t really care about this stuff much unless framed differently, like “you can watch YouTube without ads” rather than “it’s your legal right to not have ads as children” and “Linux has many many free games” for example.

Why not just expand on Libreboot instead?

That would imply at least 30% is bi/pan.

And even at 80%, early humans already had it really rough. There seems to have been 2 near extinctions of modern humans in the far past, so when the population is about 1000, having 200 not contribute is pretty big. Especially with the higher mortality rates early humans had in regards to birth.

It’s more likely the percentage started extremely low and increased over time as population stability increased, since then it would reach a point where 10-20% not having kids wouldn’t be as big a deal since there would now be hundreds of thousands or even over a million.

I don’t think the human race would have survived 50/50 split

EMP would be better

Seerr is ready to use? I thought the merger between overseerr and jellyseerr was just announced days ago

Is Fluxer US based though?

This has big XKCD Energy. It almost feels like an exact recreation of the comic but with tech:

Let’s start with this - where do you think the heat goes?

If comics were written for women they wouldn’t resemble any of this bullshit.

Uh huh… Even threw in some vintage books in there.

Like this?

Agree.

But “Black Lives Matter Too” abbreviates to BLMT which kinda sound like a sandwich 😅

BLAM conveys the same meaning but the acronym does double duty.

I mean, the phrase wasn’t good either, hence why you also ended up thinking that.

Black Lives Also Matter would have been much better, as it alludes that there is enough prejudice that society must be reminded, and the acronym is BLAM, which could be used as onomatopoeia invoking gun shots, which directly ties to the causes original protests against the police. It also sounds more of a plea for help than it does an aggressive simple statement - which considering the movement aimed to be peaceful, is the kind of sound you’d want.

The truth is these kinds of things heavily rely on optics, and BLM was a very bad choice of slogan. People forget even the whole Rosa Parks thing was carefully orchestrated for a reason - you need good causes, good figures, and good slogans for rallying support.

BLM is so bad I wonder if the push to use it was some kind of counter psy-op to then push things like All Lives Matter to help discredit it, because I swear I heard the BLAM acronym being used as well in the beginning. I would imagine such authorities would have learned well how to discredit such movements ever since the days and success of the Civil Rights era.

And my point is that it’s self defeating to call yourself a feminist if you’re egalitarian unless there’s a reason for it. Otherwise, just call yourself egalitarian to show you’re about equality to the general population, therefore you can recruit others to the cause more easily.

My wife doesn’t call herself a “teacher’s unionist” if asked, she just calls herself a unionist, because the rights of all workers supercedes those of only teachers. Unless talking specifically to other teachers, parent students, etc, she champions the rights of unions themselves, and supports and encourages people to join a union, and union.

The issue with many feminist groups is that they insist on being feminists first and foremost rather than egalitarians. This is what has lead in part to the existence of TERFs - by hyper focusing on women’s rights instead of just agreeing “yeah, and I’m also an egalitarian”, you open the door to exclusionary groups. Because while egalitarianism is open to all who are inclusive, feminism is not by definition of focus.

It’s not the only group afflicted by this, and it’s part of the reason why the right wing has managed to gain so much power over the years - because while they all might be different flavors of hate and contempt, they are at least united globally behind hate and contempt.

Meanwhile we have those who rally behind compassion and equality arguing we shouldn’t all be considered compassionate and pro equality because there’s “specializations” and that uniting under one banner weakens the cause somehow 🙄

Fighting simply for a “better life for all”, while noble, is really naive. You need to get specific about the things you want to tackle.

Egalitarianism isn’t just “better life for all” without a plan, just like Feminism isn’t “Equality for Women” without a plan.

Uniting under the banner of Egalitarianism as a group, rather than stating you’re not that but are instead a feminist, would be like saying “I’m not in the LGBTQ+ movement, I’m a Trans Rights activist”.

Everytime people like you insist (even if coming from a place with good intentions) we shouldn’t consider ourselves egalitarian, you weaken all groups that would benefit from standing united under it. There’s a reason right wing propaganda networks constantly argue against the term “Egalitarian” and try to keep groups like Feminists isolated from others - because it would hurt them if it actually gained in popularity.

There are indeed many people who would not qualify as egalitarian. Libertarians, Republicans, Musk - all of them hate it, because “equality for all” is in fact not as broad as you would hope, unfortunately.

Because they are arguing against the “egalitarian” label rather than supporting both it and feminism.

Today’s specific problems tend to be rooted in a more broader affecting cause. The Waltons and Sacklers for example are not all men, but women too. The issue that affects women the most today are no longer about simply just the patriarchy but instead of the wealthy versus the rest.

After all, the right wing usually doesn’t have issues with abortion itself - only with abortion of minorities and the poor. Of the others, not of themselves.

How to get the point across a bit better while also pointing out the guy actually doesn’t care.