Hawke

joined 2 years ago
[–] Hawke 7 points 2 months ago

Closer to html “view source”, or the “developer tools” you find in a web browser.

https://kb.corel.com/en/127364

[–] Hawke 7 points 2 months ago

That’s the joke.

[–] Hawke 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Doesn’t really have the same purpose but…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust

[–] Hawke 1 points 2 months ago

That applies when there’s no sidewalk. Never heard of such a concept when it comes to sidewalks, and as I iterated it doesn’t help anyway.

[–] Hawke 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s a very strange assumption to me that going to work and doing one’s job is “serving Allah”, let alone “fighting for Allah”

[–] Hawke 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It does.

I find it doesn’t matter though which way you ride: riding on the sidewalk is unsafe.

When (US) turning right from the right lane, drivers don’t expect you to be coming from behind to the right of them at any speed.

When turning left from the left lane, drivers don’t expect you to be coming from behind to the left at any speed.

When backing out across the sidewalk, drivers don’t expect you to be to either side at any speed.

I’m seeing a pattern here, and it’s that drivers only see what they expect to see, where they expect to see it. I’ve fucked it up myself from time to time, and this leads me to the conclusion that the safest option for biking is to be where drivers are looking: in the vehicle lanes, going the same direction as other vehicles. It’s not perfect because they still aren’t expecting a bicycle, but it’s still the best choice we have.

[–] Hawke 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Riding the wrong way, against traffic, on the sidewalk

Which way is “the wrong way” here? I can’t think of a time or place when I’ve seen or heard of a one-way sidewalk.

[–] Hawke -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I associate that term more with archaic Christianity (Joan of Arc and other old saints spring to mind) much more than Islam.

I think the phrase hits the exact intersection of nationalism, militarism, false hero worship for people who are just doing a job, and theocracy that in combination I find deeply repulsive, no matter which specific religion it is.

[–] Hawke 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

It depends.

Were they killed in the line of duty? Did they make a choice that is at bare minimum well-intentioned? Or did they just happen to be there and died by bad luck?

Firefighter dies trying to save someone from a burning building? Sure, okay. Dies in a vehicle crash while responding? Maybe.

Dies by someone else’s actions and is never aware of any possibility of a choice? That’s not any sacrifice, let alone the “ultimate” sacrifice.

[–] Hawke 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

That’s not victim blaming, bud. To the contrary.

Webster’s, definition 2:

martyr: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

That leaves aside the religious overtones of the first definition.

If you are treating deaths due to terror attack as anything other than tragedy, there is something deeply wrong with your society.

To suggest that it is in any way voluntary, or intentional for the sake of religion, is disgusting.

[–] Hawke 0 points 2 months ago (11 children)

Unfortunately we have martyrs

If you have “martyrs” from a terrorist attack that are not the terrorists, you’re doing something wrong.

[–] Hawke 9 points 2 months ago

“Prejudiced” is the word you are looking for.

view more: ‹ prev next ›