Kenshi

That is very frustrating, to be sure.

However, the ways we’ve begun to think about sapience are so intriguing, as well. We’re beginning to move away from the anthropocentric view that humans are the only sapient creatures. Corvids, elephants, and dolphins probably already make the cut (among other vertebrates) according to the current definition of sapience.

Ants, too, which makes me wonder about the potential for deepening our understand of group/swarm sapience, as well. True “hive minds”, etc. Fascinating stuff!

So much of our understanding of the natural world comes from comparing creatures to ourselves through surface level observation. The more we can relate to an organism, as we perceive it, the more likely we are to elevate its status or “worthiness”, it seems. Now, in the presence of modern technology, we’re discovering how little we actually knew about how the world around us works.

This all ties strongly into historic religious world-views, and elevation of humans to god-like (or god’s chosen) status. So much to unpack!

Haven’t we moved into the belief that many/most multicellular organisms are sentient?

Sentience is the ability to experience feelings and sensations. It may not necessarily imply higher cognitive functions such as awareness, reasoning, or complex thought processes. ^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience}

The studies on plant ‘cognition’ and their ‘nervous system’ are not for naught. They have produced doubt. Some researchers are suddenly unsure about the status of plants and this doubt is necessary to get researchers engaged in and to acquire funding for research into plant sentience. The question of plant sentience is one of those fascinating question where, whichever answer is true we will all be in awe. If plants are sentient, then we need to rethink much of our current understanding in neuroscience. How could such a vascular system, different in so many ways from our own nervous system, give rise to consciousness? If plants are not sentient, then we are witness to a self-maintaining entity capable of complex cognitive behaviour without the presence of consciousness. ^{https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-024-09953-1}

This topic fascinates me. I’m not trying to be confrontational or argumentative, sorry if it comes off that way.

I didn’t intend to suggest that they redefined the word, I didn’t say that as such, but I agree that they may have made official changes to the word (splitting it, as you say) in some fashion.

It does read a bit like a federal power play meant to consolidate power, though the re-framing of the word “Militia” was not subsequently used as a way to undermine the 2nd amendment, as one might suspect if that were the case. One must wonder if the NRA (established in 1871), or another interested party, had any hand in influencing Charles Dick’s advancement of this legislation.

To me it reads more as a way to protect the 2nd amendment’s “militia” verbiage from scrutiny.

I don’t know any lawyers personally, so I can’t ask them. It sounds as though you might have some sources you could provide, though, if you’re parroting them? I’d love to read more if you have any links handy. I tried searching the web for the phrase but was unsuccessful.

I did find the Wikipedia article on the word “militia” and it suggests that the accepted “official” definition may have been changed by the “Militia Act of 1903”.

I do find it interesting how one can change the constitution by making official changes to the meanings of language, without a constitutional amendment. That seems concerning.

So, a militia, in your interpretation is:

“A group of able bodied males who posses firearms and who are organized, in good working order, by their local government.”

Or do I have it wrong? I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, only to understand.

“Well regulated” translated from 1700’s speak just means “in good working order”, not meaning regulated by a bureaucracy issuing permits.

Assuming that to be true, what does “militia” mean when translated from 1700’s speak?

I wish we’d gotten to see the rest of Lovecraft’s redemption arc.

He died so soon after beginning to realize and acknowledge that his views about the world had been abhorrent.

Edit to add:

If anyone’s curious to read an example of the beginnings of his realization, check out this letter, written about a month before his death:

https://github.com/punchmonster/Lovecraft-Letters/blob/master/19370207-Catherine-L-Moore.md

It’s a fairly long letter, but the whole thing is interesting. He seems to have been radicalized and was becoming quite critical of capitalism, if not a full blown Marxist. You’ll find the following quote in the last paragraph:

I looked around for a 1924 photograph of myself to burn, spit on, or stick pins in! Holy Hades—was I that much of a dub at 33 … only 13 years ago? There was no getting out of it—I really had thrown all that haughty, complacent, snobbish, self-centered, intolerant bull, & at a mature age when anybody but a perfect damned fool would have known better!

There’s more evidence in there than just that passage, but this is already becoming a wall of text!

How about you spread information about everything the current administration does wrong to sway the public opinion. There is ton of material already and its been day 1. You jerking off to mass murder is working against your goals of a better society.

When we do that it gets hand-waved away as “TDS” or some equally trite nonsense.

I’m not a communist or a socialist, nor did I write the quote.

ETA:

After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives was declassified, and researchers were allowed to study it. This contained official records of 799,455 executions (1921–1953),[717][718] around 1.5 to 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag,[719][720][721] some 390,000[722] deaths during the dekulakisation forced resettlement, and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s,[723] with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[724] According to historian Stephen Wheatcroft, approximately 1 million of these deaths were “purposive” while the rest happened through neglect and irresponsibility.[725] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Death_toll

The population of the USSR in 1924 was ~124m. The population of the USSR in 1952 was ~186m. This gives us a percentage of 2%-1% of the population.

The revolutionary war saw ~1% of the colonies’ population dying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

There was a 58% population decline from 1800 to 1890 of natives in what is now the United States of America. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States

What a ridiculous position. You honestly believe that all socialists and/or communists want to kill the rich and the landlords?

Or is that just a convenient strawman you’ve created?

Communism commits evil when it goes wrong; fascism commits evil when all goes to plan. No one, not even Stalin, ever became a communist in order to do evil, whereas that’s the whole point in becoming a fascist. - Julie Burchill

New York Times - Feb. 1, 1933 (Archive.org copy so you can zoom in and read it more clearly)

You gotta use an escape character, specifically a backslash ( \ ), when dealing with *s on lemmy.

Otherwise you end up with “stufflike this!”

When it could have been “stuff*like this*!”

ETA: Damn, you’re good. Fixed it before I even finished this post!

Agreed. The humor of the comic is in the hyperbole.

Definitely. Innocent until proven guilty. But then, the conversation does still have to happen, sometimes. That’s how people (on both sides of the debate) learn the difference in the first place.

I’m unfamiliar with the show, but thank you so much for engaging with the nuance of the situation, here. I agree with what you have to say regarding context surrounding “Moliendo Café”. Context matters. OP’s comic is a bit too “strawman” for my tastes.

There’s discussion to be had, for sure, but this comic squeezes all the nuance out of a complex topic just to score an easy gotcha.

i dont know that ill say IP shouldnt exist.

And the authors aren’t really saying that, either.

To be clear, I don’t agree with all of the authors’ positions. I also think it’s worth noting that the authors are not advocating for an elimination of the patent and copyright systems without replacing them with systems better suited to ensuring creator prosperity while also allowing for speedier human innovation.

It’s worth a read, if you’re interested in the subject matter. It challenged my opinions on intellectual property, but didn’t change them entirely. Things they discuss, such as patent trolling and patent squatting, are worth contemplation. How can we change IP law to disincentivize such antisocial intellectual property law use by bad-faith actors?

ETA:

The economic burden of today’s patent lawsuits is, in fact, historically unprecedented. Research shows that patent trolls cost defendant firms $29 billion per year in direct out-of-pocket costs; in aggregate, patent litigation destroys over $60 billion in firm wealth each year.

(From the above article… and that was in 2014!)

This is a great read on the IP topic. I highly recommend it:

Against Intellectual Monopoly

This is the co-author’s site and it does contain the full text, although physical copies are available directly from the Cambridge University Press.

Here’s a summary:

“Intellectual property” – patents and copyrights – have become controversial. We witness teenagers being sued for “pirating” music – and we observe AIDS patients in Africa dying due to lack of ability to pay for drugs that are high priced to satisfy patent holders. Are patents and copyrights essential to thriving creation and innovation – do we need them so that we all may enjoy fine music and good health? Across time and space the resounding answer is: No. So-called intellectual property is in fact an “intellectual monopoly” that hinders rather than helps the competitive free market regime that has delivered wealth and innovation to our doorsteps. This book has broad coverage of both copyrights and patents and is designed for a general audience, focusing on simple examples. The authors conclude that the only sensible policy to follow is to eliminate the patents and copyright systems as they currently exist.

ETA: It’s written from the perspective of believers in the broad capitalist structure. The authors are serious economists that support the free market in no uncertain terms.

We will always love to see others enjoy a part of our culture (as long as it is not in an exploitative and fetishistic way).

I think this is a big part of the reason why some people get all white-knight about cultural appropriation. It can be quite difficult to know, as a cultural outsider, and from a glance, when something is being done in an exploitative and/or fetishistic way.