♫♪ ( ( ◙=◙ ) ) ♫♪ @soundwave@qoto.org

@trinsec

Then, in that case, when they calmed down later and their instincts were no longer in control, did they realise their mistake and beg their deity to forgive them for doubting it and its "divine plan" etc.?

Forgive me if this seems kind of crass, but as an atheist I really struggle to understand religious people. If there are 5000 Christians trapped in a burning church building, why do they run out of it, screaming? Aren't they, as Christians, completely missing the point of Christianity?

OK, so Galileo wasn't omniscient. Big deal.
The phenomena of the universe are never going to be 100% comprehensible by the human brain, because the human brain is not able to cope with the required amount of complexity. The universe will always be partially ineffable to us. Our brain is only a small lump of electrified fat that evolved on the plains of the Serengeti to be good at a few things:
* identify visual patterns, in particular:
- human/primate faces
- predators with big teeth
- food
* judging how easy/hard it will be to leap to the nearest tree branch
* socially interact with other members of the troop/family/tribe, including:
- language,

and not much else.

It's a fluke that these brains grew so much in response to those things that it is also accidentally able to invent and appreciate art, mathematics and science.

But, that fluke isn't so infinite that it will enable us to comprehend all of the phenomena of the universe. But that's OK, we can still be immensely powerful, we just need to trust that our mathematics' conclusions can be trusted. Take, for instance, the dual wave-particle nature of light - our brains are literally incapable of "fitting" such a concept inside our minds. We can visualise and understand a wave, we can visualise and understand a particle, but we cannot visualise and understand something that is BOTH. So we build mathematics that "works" with that thing that is both - and 'poof' it works, so now we can effectively understand it, but only by using and trusting the mathematics. Our understanding of light exists "outside" of our brains - it is partially detached from our brains - it exists on the paper of the pages of the textbook and there it must stay, because our primate lump of electric fat simply cannot grasp the concept of what light actually is.

It's become obvious in the last 5 or so years, that Evil is winning, and that it will continue to win, until it has won ... which won't be very much further in the future.

What do I mean by "evil"? I'm not sure. I mostly think that there are no such things as "good" or "evil", rather I think what we really mean by those words is the concept of Morality. That is, there is no "good" or "evil" - there is only morality, or immorality. What are "morality" and "immorality"? Well, they are subjective based on the species that is defining them - for Homo Sapiens, what we mean by "moral" is inextricably tied with our concepts of humanity's best interests, ie. a species-centric selfishness. We have an instinctive ability to judge things based on their influence regarding the long-term survival of the species.

Anyway, I do think that "evil" is stronger than "good", and that it will win in the end. In the same way that Ignorance is stronger than Knowledge, Darkness is infinitely more enduring and powerful than Light.

Are we witnessing the end of the United States?
Some seriously fucked up shit happening there now. Like, lots of stuff that are literally, genuinely, actually intolerable.

@freemo
Time for hotdog supper

TIL about "thought-terminating clichés". https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

A thought-terminating cliché is a saying, often a tautology, that is repeated in order to relieve the stress of cognitive dissonance by avoiding all further consideration of a matter. Everyday examples include "it is what it is," "it's just common sense," and "you gotta do what you gotta do."
Thought-terminating clichés are an important aspect of mind control as used by cults. For example, the Unification Church uses the cliché "you think too much," while Alcoholics Anonymous says "your best thinking got you here" and "utilize, don't analyze."
Examples:
* The Lord works in mysterious ways.
* All's well that ends well.
* You never know until you try.
* You never succeed for not trying.
* Do, or do not, there is no try.
* Make of it what you will but…
* If you don't like it, don't buy it.
* That's just your opinion.
* I'm just saying.
* Do your own research.

Most Right-Wing USAmericans: "I cannot trust Science because of Capitalism! Capitalism forces Scientists to make decisions based on money!"

Also most Right-Wing USAmericans: "Capitalism is literally the perfect system! All Hail Capitalism! God Bless Capitalism!"

Just a reminder that all of these people want to control your behaviour:
Government
Religion
Employer
Police
Media
Spouse
Parents
Children
Friends
Businesses

Also, try to remember that you can please some of them, some of the time, but not all of them, all of the time.

What is Government? It is literally the controlling of people's behaviour. What does a government actually do? It makes rules, and rules are nothing but a collection of controls of people's behaviour. The rules are based on arbitrary policies, hence the root of the term "politics".
There is only one type of politics: Conservatism. Conservatism is the preferential allocation of more freedoms to one group of people, while selectively removing freedoms from another group of people. That's what Conservatism is, and that's what all governments do, and that's what Politics literally is. Nothing more.
What are the Police? The truth is hidden in plain sight: their name means that they are the ones who enforce the Policies of the Rulers who are in power at the time. They are literally the Rulers' thugs.
Their job is literally to restrict and control the freedoms of one group of people, while simultaneously allowing more freedoms for another group of people. Ostensibly, officially, they only act in strict accordance with the rules, but in practice they selectively and preferentially enforce the rules more or less within their broad discretionary powers, according to the unwritten and possibly also unspoken deeper Intent behind the current rulers' policies. For example, if the current rulers are clearly, obviously racist, but they haven't (yet?) codified their racism into written rules, the Police will use their latitude to enforce racism within the community.

It appears to me that there is a hypocrisy rampant among the USAmerican Right Wing that is so gargantuan that they cannot see it.
They froth at the mouth about "Freedom"
but they do not mean "freedom for everybody".
They demand absolute freedom for themselves. OK, I get it. That particular goal is understandable on its own. It has many major inherent problems, but as an ideology it is not implicitly malignant.

However they also demand the right to restrict the freedoms of others. They demand the power to take away any freedoms they want, from anyone else, anywhere, anytime.

This is such a fanatical abuse of power that it is abhorrent to any objective sense of reason and justice.

Apparently, the people who want to wield this power do not consider the possibility that they might perhaps not be worthy to do so. They just seem to assume that they deserve the right to deal out judgement and punishment however they deem fit at any moment. They want their own freedom, while at the same time they want to be able to control everyone/anyone else's freedoms and restrictions.

Having ADHD is like trying to cram for the most important exam of your life, while almost dead from sleep deprivation, while on the open deck of a fishing boat, with all the workers yelling and doing stuff, during The Perfect Storm, in the middle of a Naval battle between 5 battleships. And the tip of your pencil keeps snapping off.

Wherever a system already exists, or whenever a new system is created there will always be three types of users:
1. Those who work within the system. They get the permitted types of things done, but slowly, inefficiently and wastefully.
2. Those who immediately strive to figure out how to work around the system to get shit done efficiently
3. This who immediately strive to figure out how to exploit the system and get what they want, forcing the system to give it to them, in contradiction to the system's intended meaning and design.

Which type are you?

Politics, Human Nature.

Homo Sapiens evolved on the plains of the Serengeti.

Homo Sapiens' ancestors were Prey animals.

Homo Sapiens became Predators only after inventing tools (and weapons).

Homo Sapiens' original genetics causes their default instincts to be based on fear, anxiety and caution, and only allow the organism to relax and pursue other other experiences such as social bonding, in the absence of fear-inducing stimulus.

Humans become less fearful when they are holding weapons.

In a safe environment, humans can be creative with tools.

In an unsafe environment, creativity is stifled, social bonding is suppressed, and humans prefer holding weapons rather than tools.

Conservative politics is all based on fear.
(Fear! Fire! Foes! The Visigoths are at the gate! Doom and Gloom! Batten Down the Hatches! Slam the Doors and Shutters! Tighten your Purse Strings and your Belts!)

Progressive (ie. creative) politics cannot thrive in a stressful, fearful environment.

The modern economic systems that most governments want in their countries are based on the assumption, the hope, and the need for humans to be creative.

But the Conservative factions in the governments think that they can goad the population into being extremely creative at sword point/gunpoint, with the Air Raid sirens blaring through every News outlet.

In times of fear & uncertainty, most people vote Conservative. Because Progressives (hope & creativity) cannot save us from scary stuff.

Life Pro Tip:
Don't sleep in the same bed as someone with Restless Legs Syndrome and Intermittent Limb Movement

@Pat @trinsec
Nah. That's not quite the point that I was trying to convey with my analogy. The point that I'm trying to make is that Religious people sharing a common vision of reality isn't harmless - they fully believe that that vision actually IS reality. (That's why I used the analogy of the deluded Trekkies). So if a very large bunch of people fully, truly believe that a shared fiction is just as "real" as reality, (or maybe even more real) then the entire human race that shares a planet with those people has a big problem!
Take for instance, the Christian ideology of humans' dominance over all the Earth - the land, sea, plants and animals. They truly, honestly believe that the Earth exists for one and only one reason - for them to use however they wish. That is now one very seriously dangerous bunch of people acting recklessly. Wrecking, consuming and exploiting the world with no regard for the future implications of their vandalism, or for their impact on other people who do not share that sense of entitlement.

@otso
... you think I need help? Why do you think I need help? And why do you think you are able/capable/qualified to help me?

@Pat @trinsec
There is a small cadre of unfortunate people who have the right combination of mental illnesses that they become so obsessed with Star Trek that they legitimately believe they are a character in the Star Trek universe. It's quite sad actually. They can't really function in society. Anyone who meets one of these people very, very quickly realises that there is something deeply wrong with these people's minds.

Religion is EXACTLY THE SAME except it doesn't require mental illnesses to take over a person's life, it only requires childhood indoctrination.

@Pat @trinsec
But, the mental models that religion puts into people's heads are fiction. It doesn't matter how many people share the vision or how intensely they imagine it, it still has exactly zero realness. The simulations in their minds are false, and erroneous. Not one single person among them has gained any true knowledge of the universe by the presence or the sharing of the vision.

@otso

What's your point?