Loquebantur

6 ms·

1.
by Loquebantur 4d ago
People don't "play by the rules" for uniform reasons: some have rational insight, others can be enticed and still others need to be shown averse consequences for breaking them. Rules aren't beneficial only when you hit 1
2.
by Loquebantur 4d ago
Your idea about the world being inhabited by mindless seekers of short-sighted "competitive advantages" is the fantasy. Getting people to agree isn't easy, that doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile. There often even is
3.
by Loquebantur 4d ago
Earth isn't infinite . You can and should engage in international regulation, as that is the only way to solve international problems. The idea, capitalism would somehow lead to an ideal world all by itself is demonstrably wrong.
4.
by Loquebantur 4d ago
You start from incorrect premises by presupposing agreed-upon rules would never work anyway. "Competition" only makes sense within a pre-mediated set of constrains. Rules all competitors agree to. Workable rules are a difficult pr
5.
by Loquebantur 18d ago
Not bad, but leaves out crucial steps? "I chose to do this" puts the blame at your own feet without telling you how to deal with it constructively. That can lead to learned helplessness. Contemplation has the goal of a reassessme
6.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
https://archive.ph/W2tpE > One of the dead was Technical Sergeant Kevin Stallings, a digital network intelligence analyst whose family told Bloomberg they wanted him to be identified to bring greater attention to the sui
7.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
Thanks, that's actually valuable feedback. You missed, for instance, this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormwood_%28miniseries%29 It's (perhaps surprisingly) based on true events and might give some ide
8.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
No, it doesn't: it means to mislead people like you into getting the appearance of agreeableness while actually still baselessly denying the salient point. Denying without giving any rational reason is again a rhetoric trick to gasligh
9.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
Of course there is, but what difficulties can you possibly have finding it? Part of the problem with events like these is people's "incredulity", which is fundamentally rooted in them not being force-fed with the topic by the
10.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
"Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book? You fall for rhetoric tricks at your own expense here. This matter has a host of important consequences and implications. Treating it at
11.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
So? "Housecleaning" isn't part of USCYBERCOM, obviously, it belongs to several arms of the (military) IC and is even partly sourced out to private contractors. Obviously, it's not exactly official. Did you expect them to
12.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
You might want to actually read the article, then you would see how your descriptions don't actually apply. Part of the shitty work conditions (that remarkably persist despite incredible amounts of money vanishing in the DoD/W) is
13.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
The US intelligence community engaging in murdering suspected "weak links" in order to "send a message", "clean the house" etc. is a regularly recurring phenomenon. The fiction, that intelligence community (amo
14.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
You supplant your lack of knowledge in statistics with unfounded assumptions and overt bias. The relevant metric here is number of deaths per size of the specified group and per time . You compare to completely different numbers and confab
15.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
Probably, more importantly: it's a lie.
16.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
That's gross disinformation and patently untrue.
17.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
It's a systemic issue, not due to one man. What gets overlooked here is the US IC itself being a probable cause: the habit of "housecleaning" by killing individuals suspected to be possible (even only prospective) leaks of in
18.
by Loquebantur 1mo ago
What gets overlooked here is the US IC itself being a probable cause: the habit of "housecleaning" by killing individuals suspected to be possible (even only prospective) leaks of information is very real. The recent cluster of we
19.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
You're right about that, but that's a corner too much to turn for most people.
20.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
? That's total nonsense. Positions of power attract people who want to use that power for their own gain. They abuse it regularly, whether it's politics, enterprises or even charity. To assume, that somehow wouldn't happen wh
21.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
The public narrative around conspiracy theories is baffling for sure: what rational basis is there for assuming them wrong? Often none. Incentive and ability are what should be looked at. There, things get far more interesting: what is t
22.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
That propaganda trick isn't "one guy repeats stuff a thousand times" and works on a substantial subset of the population. Human society isn't restricted to "focusing on one thing or the other". That false dic
23.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
You're conceptually wrong about "the theory" and factually about the majority of fires. The fundamental connection increase of CO2 => increase in mean temperature => increase in frequency of high-energy atmospheric
24.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
You're very wrong. The propaganda practice of incessant repetition being effective even in face of blatantly obvious contradicting facts is well established. The reason climate catastrophe deniers incessantly repeat their nonsense isn&
25.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
Well, actually, you're exemplifying mine. Being trapped in an Overton window selected for you by those invested in upholding the status quo is what leads to your emotional stress. The fundamental disconnect between the existential th
26.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
There is no dichotomy between preparing for the inevitable and preventing the preventable. Painting the actions of people on the other side of the planet as "out of anybody's control" is hubris though. Humanity very well is c
27.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
What is indicative of escalating climate catastrophe is indeed the intensity and frequency of those firestorms, not any lack of precedent for a cloud shape. But the really salient observation is how people individually and their social sy
28.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
A rational approach to existential threats is indeed good advice, but to surrender in the face of complexity is not. The human induced climate catastrophe is due to a systemic failure and consequentially needs to be addressed on a systemic
29.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
The human induced climate catastrophe has reached unprecedented levels because of humanity's continued failure to correctly integrate that reality into their decisions and the resulting inaction. Landes & Médoc serve as an immediat
30.
by Loquebantur 2mo ago
People in the climate movement are rarely professional PR folks. Weaponizing their personal faults against the objective subject matter they talk about is disingenuous anyway? You cannot deduce factual correctness from how "holy"

More ›