HiddenLayer5

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Interesting. Thanks for your perspective!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (7 children)

Just curious, what were you disappointed about?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Think they condemned the Union side of the American Civil War or the Independence War too? US side of the Vietnam War since the US attacked first? US side of the Iraq War sinc--I mean you get what I'm saying right?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (9 children)

Highly recommend reading the Red Deal, which is written by Indigenous socialists on what they think decolonisation should entail.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I wonder if it has something to do with surface exposure to magnetic fields. A very strong magnetic field, enough to levitate a train, zipping by you at the speed of said train, while not harmful to human biology unlike a lot of fear mongerers claim, can interfere with radio antennas and the navigation systems on ships and aircraft. The inside of the train is heavily shielded but I imagine it's pretty much impossible to prevent it from escaping into the outside without containing the entire track in shielding.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

If only it were for any of the actual crimes he’s committed and not made up or fringe bullshit.

The issue is that the crimes he committed are legal in the US.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That genuinely got me for a second before I clicked on the video lol. I was like "Wait what? Why would Warrior Cats release a statement about Assad?"

 
[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

Greetings comrade!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

That's the American version

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Just like how Nazism isn't "white supremacist" but a single very narrow white ethnicity supremacist, Zionism isn't about all Jews but a single ethnicity/subgroup of Jews. Israel has committed numerous documented atrocities against other Jews.

 
[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The "Xi got butthurt and banned all of Winnie the Pooh in China" thing is mind numbingly easy to disprove. Just search the phrase on literally any Chinese internet service. If they still spout that claim, they've obviously not done even one minute of research or fact checking and are so clearly just blindly regurgitating propaganda (which they also accuse people who support China of doing, funny how that works) that all of their opinions on China can be safely ignored.

You know what I did when I first heard that claim? I went straight to Baidu and searched up Winnie the Pooh, in English even, and surprise surprise it returned results like any other search engine. And this was when I was still a liberal who didn't like China.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

I'm not a huge fan of the OCP personally (and it's been repealed so I guess they're not a huge fan either now) but I need to give a piece of context that I never see talked about in the West: Ethnic minorities in China are totally exempted from it from day one. This includes Uyghurs and Tibetans. It's pretty much only for Han people which is the majority in China. Make of that how you want but if they created it as an ethnic cleansing tool like so many Westerns claim, they were really really bad at ethnic cleansing.

 

So I was surprised to find it screening in a big name movie theatre near me in Canada. Didn't really know much about it, was just surprised to find a Chinese language movie in a non-Chinese theatre in Canada and was pretty curious so I went in and watched it. (I wanted to watch a movie anyway, decided to watch that instead of what I originally had in mind.)

I really liked it, highly recommended. I'm by no means a movie expert, but here's my review of it.

It tells three intertwining stories all relating to organized cybercrime. A programmer who accepts a fake job offer and gets kidnapped to work for an internet fraud operation; a down on her luck model who accepts a job at an online casino, run by the same cybercrime ring, and is similarly held captive and forced to continue well after she wants out; and a victim of said online casino and other rigged illegal gambling operations who bankrupts himself and his family. It's based on real cases and major busts that have happened in Southeast Asia, and the director interviewed over 10,000 people affected by organized cybercrime, and modeled the story closely to their real experiences. His goal was to use this movie to educate people about how cybercrime rings work, how they manage to evade authorities, how and why they employ human trafficking (which is not something one immediately thinks of when considering internet scams and illegal casinos), and how and why people fall victim to them.

Overall, I think it was an extremely powerful film and one that is sorely needed in this day and age where cybercrime and cyber fraud is rampant and tons of people fall victim to it every day. From a literary perspective, I really liked the three intertwining stories that all converge at the end, it's something that has been tried a lot in various types of media and is pretty hard to do well, but when it is done well it's a really cool experience. All of the protagonists were easy to sympathize with and had realistic motivations and actions (which makes sense considering this is based on true stories). The brainwashing of the victims and how their wills are broken by their captors is also very powerful and something that has been documented to happen in real life. In terms of cinematography and dialogue, I personally liked it being a Chinese person who is fluent in Mandarin, but there are some cultural and general "trends in film making" differences between Chinese and Western cinema, similar to Bollywood and Western movies, so I suspect it might feel kind of weird to people who are only used to Western movies, particularly English-language ones, something to keep in mind while watching but I don't think it takes away from the film itself at all.

The English subs also left something to be desired IMO. Since I understand both Mandarin and English I did a bit of comparing, and it seems to be similar to how Japanese anime is dubbed, where it is more of a formal translation of what is being said, and is missing most of of the emotion, expressions, and cultural context, IMO an English dub would have been better for the local market (I'm gonna get murdered by the subbed anime crowd for saying that), though I personally would have still preferred the original Mandarin version since it's my first language.

All in all I highly recommend it. Though, CW for violence, human trafficking, suicide, and implied sexual abuse if you do decide to watch it.

 

Basically, I have a sci-fi world with intelligent animals. The story is that long after humans disappeared from the Earth, animals eventually become intelligent and made their own society to replace them. One major development in their history is that predators and prey agreed to live in harmony, signing treaties, making laws, and generally working very hard to ensure lasting peace between natural enemies.

One aspect of this is of course prosecuting animals that engage in predation. The way criminal trials work in this world is that every animal has the right to be tried by members of their own species or taxonomic group, who are also responsible for carrying out sentencing. Each animal has a taxonomic government to answer to, so if you're a cat you are under the jurisdiction of the Feline government, mouse, Rodent government, bird, Avian government, etc. Each animal follows the same basic laws and regulations that all taxonomic governments agree on, things like prohibiting predation is one of these, but each government can also pass taxon-specific legislation, and are also able to determine criminal penalties independently.

The Felines only had their revolution a few years ago, when they overthrew their old kingdom which was very pro-predation, and made a republic that has signed the Interspecies Peace Agreement and is therefore very anti-predation. Because it's so recent, the Felines also have the harshest punishments for a predation conviction made after the revolution. One count of first degree predation (when you personally kill then eat an animal) is an automatic life in prison without parole, the same penalty as "regular" murder without eating the victim, two or more counts is life in prison unless the prosecution requests for the death penalty at the start of trial and this is authorized by both the judge and the Feline Ministry of Security. Generally, courts stop at two predation convictions even if it's obvious that the defendant committed more, since that's enough to either put them away forever with no chance of parole, or kill them. Second degree predation, AKA simple predation, where you eat already dead animals that someone else killed, is treated much less harshly and sentencing options only has fixed term imprisonment possibly with parole, though with restrictions afterward like you can't work in the government or security-critical industries unless the court lifts those restrictions on a case by case basis. The ISPA lists execution after being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime that causes the death of two or more other animals as the only exception to the no killing rule, and it can only be done by members of the same species or taxonomic entity, and is also subject to oversight and can even be blocked outright by other ISPA members through the ISPA Inter-Taxon Court, so they also do not have full autonomy on who they can execute, and taxa that have the death penalty much also must make their execution methods (which are mandated to always prioritize minimizing suffering), judicial procedures, and statistics public.

They do also use the threat of execution as a way of getting information about a predation case though. If they catch a Feline who is apart of a predation ring, it's better than nothing but they'd obviously much rather take down the leader and the entire organization. The Feline Ministry of Security can basically tell the accused "Look, your trial date has been set, the prosecution has requested authorization to use the death penalty from us, and you know what evidence they have on you. We're still trying to decide if we want to grant that request. It's up to you and we can't force you to give us any information, but is there anything you want to tell us about your organization or do you want to gamble with whether you'll be found guilty or not?" Funnily enough most of these cats don't care that they're killing sapient prey animals that have lives and families and stories, but break real fast when it's their own life on the line.

The Felines (and any ISPA member for that matter) can also arrest other species if they commit a crime on their territory or against a their own animals, but within the Interspecies Peace Agreement member species, animals have the right to stand trial and receive sentencing by their own species or taxon, so most they can do is investigate the crime, form a case with evidence, and then extradite the defendant back and forward their findings to the government that actually has jurisdiction. Most they can do to a non-Feline is detain them, extradite, and then ban them from Feline territory. However, any ISPA non-signatories, AKA predators that are actually predators and eat prey, who engage in predation, either against any ISPA member species anywhere in the world, or on ISPA territory against any animal; are not granted this right (obviously, since if you extradited them back to their own territory they'd be home free). So if you eat a cat or eat a mouse or bird or any other animal on Feline territory, you are dealt with just like any predatory cat by the Feline government regardless of what the laws by your own taxonomic government is.

I should also add that every animal is intelligent/sapient in this world. So predation really would be like murder. No copouts like eating fish or whatever.

Even in universe this is quite controversial even among prey species so I'm not trying to claim that this is the ideal state of the law, but I'm more trying to make sure if this makes sense or not. I also know that they will almost certainly have very different morals and ethics for humans, but then again I'm writing this story for humans so not sure how relevant that actually is. Is the motivation of having a death penalty despite not even allowing animals to eat meat a realistic one?

 

So basically, this is a sci-fi fantasy world with intelligent/sapient animals. Not anthros like in Zootopia, just regular animals that can all talk to each other, form societies, and develop science and technology. Obviously, predation is a massive, central issue to this world, being that it was the primary driving force of all animals for most of their history. However, they have now progressed enough technologically where even obligate carnivores like cats can get all their required nutrients without needing to eat other animals, with sufficient help from their biochemistry and chemical manufacturing prowess. Obviously, this does not mean every single species who historically did eat meat stop overnight. Actually, some would argue that the journey toward abolishing predation, a journey marked by revolution, war, and death for both sides, is almost as bloody and violent as predation itself (this is a massive logical fallacy yes, but it is an opinion held by many in-universe and I explore that in my plot).

First, some context: I will be using the terms Carnivore and Herbivore, to refer to the biochemical characteristics of animals. In their universe, those designations, when capitalized as proper nouns, have fairly straight forward definitions: A carnivore is any animal that, without access to science or technology, is incapable of deriving their complete nutritional requirements without eating meat, they cannot subsist on raw plants alone without processing and/or taking synthetic supplements. A cat is a carnivore, so is a dog, so is a ferret, so is a fox, so are humans technically but they disappeared from the planet millions of years ago. By contrast, a herbivore is any animal that can subsist on raw plants alone, like mice, rabbits, horses, and deer. This definition is purely biochemical, as in do you have the enzymes and gut structure to do it, and by design does not take into account things like preference, behaviour, culture/religion, or how practical it would be (if there was only plant that can sustain you and literally nothing else other than meat, it still counts), because, again, they have the technology to allow basically every animal to subsist on plants, comfortably at that, minus it not tasting the same. You're either one or the other, if you're not sure, then Carnivore is the catch-all term unless your ability to subsist on raw plants is verifiable. Omnivore isn't really as a term in this world since pretty much every animal is technically an omnivore, as in they can eat and digest both meat and plants, including nearly every "Herbivore." Likewise, terms like predator and prey imply behaviour and ecology, not biochemistry, and most animals fell into both categories historically, but with their technology those terms have become so fluid as to be essentially meaningless.

Which brings me to the in-universe opinions that I have come up with, they relate to both predation and interspecies coexistence in general, since those kind of go paw to paw. Note that these are super generalized and are in no particular order.

Carnivores:

  • "It's my right to eat my prey, no matter how much suffering it causes! I don't care what technologies are available, predation is the natural order of things and should never be challenged! The role of a predator is to dominate and rule their prey. Maybe the prey would suffer less if they just accepted and made peace with their place on the food chain!" (This is called Trophism.)

  • "Predation is both barbaric and totally obsolete in our current technological landscape. It is unbecoming of an intelligent, sapient species with complete control over our primitive instincts. Every species is equal, we should all live in peace as comrades and work together to take care of and benefit everyone!" (This is called Unitism.)

  • "Look, I'll concede that we shouldn't be eating other animals and actively making them suffer. But I just can't agree to this interspecies cooperation nonsense. My only responsibility to my own species (or taxon, which is a group of related species), no one else. I won't hunt my prey but I won't be helping them without benefit to myself either."

Herbivores

  • "Even though I'm low on the food chain, it is still my place. I don't want to be eaten and will try to avoid it to the best of my ability, but if that's what it comes to, then so be it." (Trophism)

  • "I don't want you to eat me, in fact I want to be your friend and ally! I think every species is equal and that your evolutionary history does not define an intelligent animal, and as long as we all commit to being nice to each other, there is no reason every species can't live in harmony!" (Unitism)

  • "Those savages hunted us for generations! I don't care if they don't do that anymore, I don't care how long not a single member of their species has even so much as mildly hurt another animal! Not only do I not want to ally with them, I think it's the duty of my species or taxon, as the prey, to rise up and destroy my predators! No amount of peacemaking now can undo nature and I'd turn the tables and kill every single one of them if I could!"

  • "Hey, it's nice that you're not eating prey anymore and all, and though I don't harbour any active ill will toward you, I still don't trust you and just want to be left alone with my own species or taxon. You don't interact with me if you don't need to and I don't interact with you if I don't need to, cool?"

What are your thoughts? Are there any more sides to this issue that you can come up with? And personally, which one would you most agree with if you were in this world?

 

If you don't know, Hirohito was the emperor of Japan during WWII and directly masterminded the rape of Ninjing.

 

I've been wondering for quite a while if I have autism or not as I seem to hit a lot of the commonly reported symptoms and experiences. I recently tried some of the self-tests out there, including the ones on Embrace Autism, and yeah, I hit every single one I tried for mild to even moderate autism. Scored 49 on the rbq-2a for example.

Now, I know that none of those tests are conclusive and I could easily be a false positive, so I'm not directly claiming I have autism. But I'm thinking the next step is probably to talk to my primary care doctor, but to be honest I'm really hesitant to/don't completely trust the mental health system in Canada. Genuinely asking because I don't really have anyone in my personal life who has similar experiences or I think would understand: what do people here think about getting a formal diagnosis? Is it always something one should pursue if they suspect they're on the spectrum? Are there any major drawbacks? I'm especially concerned about it affecting my career prospects (which already aren't great tbh, my fault for getting a science degree in an already niche field which I deeply regret but that's a different story) or my ability to take out loans or rent an apartment by myself. I don't personally see my autism (if I have it) as a disability, but unfortunately in Canada it is still very much seen as such. Who am I required to disclose an autism diagnosis if I am diagnosed?

I'm really sorry if any of this comes off as insensitive. I have never really participated in the autism online community and I am in no way trying to put down people with autism, I'm honestly just kind of scared about what this means for me. Anyone else in a similar situation, or were in a similar situation? Care to share your experiences or have any advice?

 
 

So I made a passing comment of "it's almost like private car ownership is a really inefficient use of space and resources" the other day, which I didn't really pay much mind to. But all the replies were either explaining the concept of public transportation as if I don't know that's the solution to private car dependence (not in a constructive way adding to my comment or anything, I got the sense that they were trying to explain the concept to me) and someone even basically said "well I'm sure you think urban sprawl is an efficient use of space then."

Are the "normies" this oblivious to how anti-car sentiments work? Do they think we're against the concept of a metal thing with four wheels and not its effects on urban development and society? Why the hell would I be against public transit or pro urban sprawl if I hate cars? Cities before cars were invented had public transit and were tightly packed and walkable. You don't think I support that?

view more: next ›