i understand even less when people are saying that when someone does something out of passion it should allow us to consume it for free
i understand even less when people are saying that when someone does something out of passion it should allow us to consume it for free
“Are we the baddies?”
I’m not going to replay an ontological debate that has been happening in the fields of sociology and psychology for decades with an engineer on the internet, who claims his own rationality a bit too hard. MBTI is considered pseudoscience because of its weakness against proper scientific validation processes, as well as its lack of support among both practitioners, theorists and researchers in the academic circles.
But to be clear, just because knowledge isn’t scientific doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value, there are tons of example like that that we use every day. The main issue I have with MBTI is that it takes the appearance of scientific knowledge, which I find deceitful and thus suspicious.
It’s pseudoscience in both cases, saying you’re so and so because your personality is INFJ has almost as little value as correlating to being a gemini. Now if you find some sense in those personality types, maybe that contains some lessons.
well you gotta do what you gotta do
reminds me of the improv “Bears gotta get knowledge” on the Dropout show Play It By Ear.
I have never agreed more with a stranger on a topic so niche
In Switzerland we don’t even have Amazon. We can order from one of the neighbourhing countries’ Amazon, but they don’t always ship here. There are a lot of alternatives though.
The sad thing is I knew at the time, but lack of games and, most of all, the lack of my friends having it, made the dreamcast lose in favour of its contenders.
I thought the Dreamcast earned this title
When you talk about international politics, terrorist is a useless word because its definition is vague and often defined by the power in place: when the Hamas kills civilians it’s “terrorism”, when Israel does it it’s “protection”. The fact that you use it so passionnately instantly disqualifies your argument, underlining its biases.
That’s not world news, that’s propaganda. The article is so biased and doesn’t even pretend to understand the dynamics or context of Switzerland’s parliament.
reminds me of the abu ghraib photos
That’s not what you said, you don’t get to lecture me by pretending you said something else.
Anything illegal deserves more yuck than I can count, but expressing your personal taste towards things that are legal and socially accepted (while frown upon) by dismissing a behaviour that you personslly disagree with is… dismissive.
The italian mind for sure tolerates more contradiction than most, but that doesn’t mean italian people can’t complain.
Also, there is a lot of different factors at play in your comment. Even only in regards to sewers, can you imagine the complexity of designing, implementing and renovating a sewer system in a historical millenia-old city built on water?
Reverence is a projection, I don’t think italians demand reverence, but respect and empathy would be a nice start.
It’s an emblem of Venice, whether you like it or not. Things have a symbolic value separated from their historical or financial value.
Also, the people of Venice aren’t a homogeneous entity, they encompass various opinions, values, etc.
Finally, things aren’t black or white. People of Venice can rely on some kind of tourism while not wanting to be invaded by disrespectful tourists.
This cynic’s stance is lame.
You should see beyond what’s written: Venice has a big tourists’ problem, who are not only increasing in numbers but also disrespectful of the history, the city and the people working and living in it. This story isn’t anecdotical, it’s emblematic of a widespread issue of touristic consumerism.
I understand where you’re coming from, but you’re expressing your taste and values in a very dismissive way
Do you realize how insane you sound? The person you’re talking to expresses skepticism and uses their critical thinking, while not taking sides, and you’re accusing them of being a terror apologist.
Here’s a crazy idea: you can be critical of both hamas and the idf. Being suspicious towards information that can be instrumentalized and asking questions to one side at one point is not and endorsement of the other side.
It’s funny I litterally just finished an episode of Search Engine, the ‘new’ PJ Vogt podcast, where that’s the actual question. It was the May 3rd episode, and they’re interviewing a researcher on the topic, etc.