Good social/political cartoons simplify a problem to its basic elements and make fun of whatever is contributing to a problem. Bad ones oversimplify a complex issue and are just an illustrated version of closed-minded griping. Actual “humor” is optional.
I really tried, a few times and I just can’t make it exciting. I find it so boring to search for people and tags I wantto follow. That said, I wasn’t a huge Twitter user before, and i don’t have bluesky. I’m just hoping one day, mastodon clicks with me.
You’re like me you just don’t like user-based sites, I simply much prefer to follow topics than people, I fucking hate people why would I follow them online.
The actual truth if you believe Christian theology. Angels AND God are fully capable of changing things, but free will is sort of like the Prime Directive in Star Trek if you want to be charitable. Uncharitably, we’re God’s play things and only a tiny fraction of the most loyal will see true reward.
The vast field of ambiguity between those two points is … kinda’ the point in why there has been so much quarrel even between Christian sects.
free will is sort of like the Prime Directive in Star Trek
That’s a really apt comparison because they play fast and loose with the prime directive all the time, using it as an excuse for inaction while flagrantly disregarding it whenever it suits them
The great irony is, the Prime Directive is to try and control the emotional overreaction of humans and is indeed often ignored by Star Trek for supposedly moral reasons… It is terribly ironic that it makes such a perfect analogy to how God, a supposedly far superior being, is described as acting in the Bible.
In Star Trek, it’s ignored to help people. In the Bible, it’s ignored because God is having a bad day and needs to lay down some punishment without being labeled a massive hypocrite because daddy do no wrong.
free will is sort of like the Prime Directive in Star Trek if you want to be charitable
This is a hilarious way of putting it, and as someone who hasn’t been all that steeped in christianity to be very familiar with it, that actually told me a lot 😄
That’s only the kind and charitable interpretations. There are ample stories of God directly murderizing people just for disobeying a direct order.
IMO, it’s all complete codswallop that’s been misconstrued off of the simple recordings of history and an attempt at passing on wisdom about which rulers were good and why.
After all, all it takes is some narcissistic piece of shit emperor to declare they shall be referred to as “god”, and no other rulers will even be recorded as having a similar honorific … and bam. God as described in the Bible suddenly makes perfect sense being a fickle piece of shit because he’s just a bastardized history of seemingly good rulers dealing with completely different problems in completely different ways.
Now, I don’t think that’s all of it. There is obviously much spirituality and baby’s first philosophy wrapped up in there, too.
God as described in the Bible suddenly makes perfect sense being a fickle piece of shit because he’s just a bastardized history of seemingly good rulers dealing with completely different problems in completely different ways.
This isn’t even all that far from the popular hypotheses about the history behind some of the stuff in the Bible, but the reason why the God of the Bible seems so damn fickle is that it’s likely an amalgamation of two different early Israelite / Canaanite gods: El and YHWH aka. Yahweh (and that name probably sounds familiar. Guess why!) If you’re interested in history, check out the book A History of God by Karen Armstrong, a nun-turned-atheist-historian. It’s an extremely interesting look into the prevailing hypotheses about the history of the 3 Abrahamic religions.
Now, it’s been a while since I read that book or about this in general so I’m not 100% sure I’m not mixing Yahweh and El up, but I think in general the ones where God goes all “FUCK YOU IN PARTICULAR” to some person or nation are El. In general in the “Elohist” passages that descend from stories of El, God is described as something really abstract or non-human, such as the burning bush. Also, interestingly the name still pops up in the (Hebrew-language) Bible in various forms.
In the “Yahwist” passages, God is described in a more personal and intimate way, and again if I remember right Yahwew is the more laid-back “facet” of the Biblical God. Interestingly the OG YHWH really hated farming and farmers, and there’s a general theme that farming and soil are somehow connected to evil, and you can see some that in the Bible; Cain was a farmer, for example. My own pet hypothesis for this is that that dates back to the agricultural revolution, when conservatively minded people would absolutely have thought that that newfangled woke farming bullshit is going to destroy society, and this sense of farming as a source of evil could have gotten incorporated into religion. Yahweh is also why depictions of God are forbidden.
Historical regional rulers did, however, affect eg. which god was favored, or what was part of the official religion, and on top of that a lot of the stories of different rulers and even some of the prophets in the Bible are essentially self-insert fanfic for some king or another.
If we’re going to take the Bible as stories that are somewhat partially true, I’d like to imagine that God as described was or is a supernatural nth dimensional being that allows for the manifestation of the human conscience in our moments of greatest suffering, but upholds a disassociative desire for a greater justice or harmony that can appear to many as an almost alien destructive nature and the tendency to punish, while another aspect or being above us, perhaps the same one, is basically a chilled out stoner who enjoys being lazy, exploring mushrooms as food, but doesn’t like the idea of farming and sedentary lifestyle.
No, the christian god its not just capable of changing things, it is omnipotent. That means it could change things without interfering with the free will.
The point about being omnipotent vs free will is… if he does ANYTHING to change our fate, he’s corrupting free will, which is supposed to be our greatest gift.
The entire concept of an omniprescient and all powerful being is nonsensical as described by Christians. A being LITERALLY CANNOT be all knowing, all kind, and omnipotent. Not if our reality is involved.
That is why there is so much debate over the nature of god and “good”. As described, it is literally impossible, so it becomes incredibly subjective.
Strictly talking the logic of it, if you’re omnipotent, then you have the power do do anything, and that includes the power to do flagrantly self contradictory things, defy logic and still be logically consistent.
The “if you’re omnipotent” part is a pretty big “if”, but it’s not inconsistent to say that “anything” includes the ridiculous.
I mean… Not really. Paradoxes don’t actually exist. Causality itself would fail to work if literally inconsistent things could be magically made consistent. It’s fundamentally not how the universe works. Literally. What you ask for could exist, but not in a universe that behaves like ours. It is fundamentally incompatible with what is observed.
Yes, completely and fundamentally incompatible. Even if God could start up a billion universes with a billion rules … ours doesn’t work like that. It’s like a game character saying, “yea well the devs could totally make this RPG a FPS game!”
Is the possibility true? Yes. Though for no reason the game character will ever comprehend nor be able to ever observe. It is fundamentally a pointless point that adds no new information to the equation.
We’re discussing logical consequences of a thing, not if the thing is possible in the first place.
You don’t have to talk logical consistency to rule out “all knowing and all powerful” if you’re just looking at how things work in reality.
In reality, you can’t be all powerful or all knowing. Done, end of story. It’s impossible on the face of it.
In the hypothetical where something can be all powerful, then the power to do whatever, even in a universe that behaves like ours does, is consistent.
The power to do anything includes the absurd, inconsistent, and contradictory.
Logic requires cause and effect. If you break cause and effect, logic means nothing.
If you keep logic, then again: Paradoxes don’t actually exist. At the end of the day, something is true or it’s not. If you’re dealing with something both true and not true, you are literally and quite directly dealing with something unresolved. We fundamentally do not observe unresolved things.
It is conceptually, definitionally, not compatible with observed reality. “Observed reality” literally cannot reference such things. The question itself is nothing but a thought experiment that far too many people fail to execute.
Yes, but such a universe is still fundamentally incompatible with Christian (and most other) religious teachings.
There would be absolutely NO point in praying or asking for help in a universe with absolute free will, yet that is exactly what Christians (and many others) teach. It shows up all over in how they treat others and civil policy.
It’s why they’re so pro punishment: You make a choice to do bad things, you had free will to choose not to, so you must be bad. It’s not completely broken logic that they use, but it is absolutely not a self-consistent set of rules.
if he does ANYTHING to change our fate, he’s corrupting free will, which is supposed to be our greatest gift.
Not really, unless you consider that every interaction with anything interferes or “corrupts” our free will. If I plan on playing a game, but a friend of mine says “dude, don’t, you’ll regret it, it fucking sucks”, and I decide to not play, did this friend corrupt my free will?
Your analogy is a little broken. God wouldn’t be simply telling you not to. God is literally changing what you want to do, or any other number of “omnipotent” actions that are not possible by someone not omnipotent.
The concept itself is incompatible with reality that operates like ours. Ours has clear, obvious, demonstrable, and repeatable rules. If those rules change, we literally cannot tell.
Omnipotence is quite literally a pointless point when there is literally NOTHING that demonstrates power beyond the existing rules. There is literally nothing that breaks causality in our reality. Our reality and existence is quite literally incompatible with omnipotence as described in the bible.
Literally any plans, any kind of tweaks, no matter how small or how far in advance he’s playing it. If you alter events or shift things to your end goals, you have destroyed free will.
Depends entirely on the religious sect. Some believe we live happily ever after in a similar condition but in paradise, some believe the believers get ascended to godhood, literally able to create universes.
It is an entire spectrum of fantasy, and that’s just the Christian sects.
I love my Subaru. But the infotainment system is awful. It’s slow and unresponsive, it frequently takes a few minutes to warm up to even be usable, which means usually when you can use it you’re already moving. It’s absolutely impossible to do anything outside of the touch screen.
The car is great, but that computer is a piece of crap
My Subaru made me drop Android and buy an iPhone. I hate the phone, but the infotainment system works drastically better. Android Auto was hot garbage.
Just out of curiosity, what android phone did you have before switching? I haven’t hadany issues with Android Auto the few times I’ve used it in a rental car. My car is too old for it but it’s going to be a variable in my next vehicle purchase which admittedly is very far away.
Android auto in isolation is generally fine. I’ve owned an aftermarket head unit that offered android auto and it worked flawlessly with my pixel phone.
When I bought a Subaru crosstrek, android auto using the same phone was terrible. It constantly disconnects and has strange audio issues all the time. Apple carplay works fine with my partners phone.
There is something about Subaru and their implementation that is total shit for android auto specifically. I wouldn’t recommend them for a good android infotainment experience.
My mom has a ‘16 Subaru and the infotainment has been such a hassle. I had to constantly keep repairing her Bluetooth. It was so bad that my daughter, who has wanted a Subaru for years decided against one simply because of the infotainment.
She ended up getting a 2016 Nissan Rogue, but it did not have an infotainment system. It is a fairly simple system with Bluetooth connectivity for audio. I wish more companies would give us the ability to modify the systems, especially after they abandon them (my 2015 Toyota Tacoma’s last map update is from about 6 months before my truck was built.)
My ‘15 Mitzu (love her so much) also has a full shit infotainment system. It’s super slow, Bluetooth has a 1.5 second delay (try watching anything on your phone while waiting for someone with that delay!) and also constantly drops connection and re-pairs.
I’ve got a BT-to-3.5mm jack BT adapter that connects INSTANTLY, sounds fantastic, and has NO DELAY.
…the got dang car doesn’t have A 3.5MM JACK WHY THE FUCK
I cam confirm that the Subarus my inlaws have had over the last 5 years have the worst infotainment systems I have ever interacted with. Their current one keeps killing the battery. Not just draining, but actually damaging it. They have had a loaner from the dealer for the last 3 months.
Love how it drives, but the electronics are annoying to use, slow, and way too distracting.
Yeah these infotainment systems are trash. I think the Subaru one is made by Denso. Like, Denso makes spark plugs and shit, stay in your line Denso! Thank fuck for Carplay/Android Auto.
If the blue exit portal was behind the wagon and so moving at the velocity of the orange entry portal, then I would agree that it’s A because they move at the same velocity and in the same direction.
But since the blue exit portal is static and the orange one is moving, the people will enter the portal at a relative velocity to the portal which will be transferred to the blue one. Meaning B will occur.
If the portals were on two wagons going in the opposite directions at the same X velocity, then the people would enter at X relative velocity and exit at 2X velocity.
The portal is a hole. The hole is moving. The conservation of momentum is the hole moving as it continues to move along the track. If the people start moving, where does that momentum come from?
Imagine a tennis racket with no strings. Two portals are stretched across the space the strings would normally be, back to back, one orange one blue. If you threw a ball in the air as if you were going to serve and swung the racket, the ball would pass straight through the portals as if they weren’t there and would fall straight down due to gravity. The ball maintains its conservation of momentum, and the tennis racket holding the portals also maintains its conservation of momentum as it swings through the air. There is no force applied by a hole.
Lets say the tennis racket has 2 portals. One in the front and one in the back. When you swing the racket, the front portal moves forwards with some speed V. The portal on the back is moving backwards with the same speed, so -V (same speed V, but in opposite direction). A stationary ball, suspended in mid-air would have 0 speed. The racket portal approaches the ball at speed V, so the ball has a relative speed V to the racket. The portal on the back has a speed of -V and ven you combine that with the ball’s speed of V, we get -V+V=0. And so the ball stays put. The portals in the image are not both in motion. The front portal is approaching the people with a speed of V and so the relative speed of the people to the portal is V. The exit portal has a speed of 0, relative to the people. When the people go through the portal, their speed is 0+V=V, meaning they get launched out the exit portal with the same speed the entrance portal hit them.
Interesting way to look at it, but I still dont see where the force is acting on the object going through the portal. The object is not in motion and will stay in that state unless something acts upon it, so where is the energy coming from to act on the object?
To make it clear from the start: I agree 100% with B - there has to be movement, because without it, people wouldn’t come out of the portal at all. And if there is a movement, then the only reasonable speed would be that of the train.
But: Your question about the energy is still interesting. It must come from somewhere. And I think, the only source, from which it can come, is the train. That is, the train would lose energy and therefore slow down.
Do we agree that the massive block with the blue portal is not moving? So, imagine we are standing right in front of it when it happens - what happens exactly? How do the people appear?
The people appear because the orange portal is moving towards them, the people then, like through a moving door, just pop out the other side.
It’s a door way through space, not a momentum giving portal.
Can you not see the orange portal moving? They don’t jump through it, this carrying their own momentum through. They are stationary through it so coming out they will also be stationary
Of course I see the orange portal moving. So we agree the orange portal is moving, the blue is stationary.
So, when you’re saying “the people just pop out the other side”. What does that mean? Do they pop out one by one? So one moment, no one is there, the next moment one person spawns and after that the third person spawns? Or do they spawn altogether? Or does each person come from the portal centimeter by centimeter, atom by atom - pushing through the portal?
That’s not what I mean. Let’s just look at one person: the person will not just appear as a whole at the blue portal, right? First there will be, I don’t know, the left arm, then the left side of the torso, the middle part… and so on. That’s what I meant with centimeter by centimeter, atom by atom - pushing through the portal. Would you agree?
At least that’s how it’s in the game. It’s not that you are touching one portal, despawn and appear at the other portal, right?
Yeah they kinda lose ground under them as the portal goes through them, they aren’t pushed, they are moved through space. No additional force or momentum is ever applied.
In the game you aren’t pushed through ever, you walk through or fall through them. You appear at the other side of the door.
So, you say, they are moving without speed. Which could only mean when one person touches the portal in one millisecond, his complete body just disappears completely from the rails and in the same millisecond his body appears behind the other portal.
That’s not how portals in the game work. That’s rather how the transporter in Star Trek works.
Who even said anything about teleporting the whole body?
The portal is moving into him so as the parts of him go through they appear on the other side like a door
Think of it as a portal falling on you and another on the floor next to you, as it falls your head goes through and your head appears through the portal on the ground and the rest of the body goes through as it falls until the portal lands on the floor and you’re standing on that same floor but in the other place as the portals are still connected.
Nobody said it’s teleporting the whole body. But that was my only explanation of how something can move without speed.
But great, that’s what I wanted to clarify the whole time. I think my explanations were too complicated, sorry.
So, taking your example:
When the portal falls on me - as soon as it reaches my neck. Only my head is coming out of the other portal, literally right above the ground. Correct?
As the portal keeps falling down, more and more of my body comes out of the other portal until my whole body is out of it. Correct?
Which leads to the fact that my head was moving from right above the ground to the height of my body. Correct?
So my head moves upwards. And since it takes time for my head to move upwards, we can measure the speed of my head moving upwards. Wouldn’t you agree?
Yeah the falling down portal does help a lot with explanation imo
we can measure the speed of my head moving upwards. Wouldn’t you agree?
Fair point, we can measure that, it would match the speed of the portal falling. It still won’t launch the person as it isn’t transferred but you can certainly measure the speed of the portal using it.
That’d be gravity. But the difference is that we are not moving (at least not relative to the ground) before entering the portal, so gravity just keeps us at the bottom.
After entering the portal, we are having a movement to the speed of the entering portal as we already established. So, gravity has yet to work against this motion (which will, of course, eventually keep us on ground again because gravity does its thing. But temporarily, and depending on the actual speed, we might have a bit of air time in this scenario).
I have my doubts, that this will convince you now. However, I gotta say, it was a lot of fun discussing this completely speculative topic with you. Also, I give you, that - while I’m still 100% sure that B is the only sensible solution for this question - you helped me better understand why people might think A is correct.
I think you can “love” someone without tolerating their nonsense. It’s all about being willing to find a consensual way of interacting. Theoretically it may be impossible, but we can still try.
Yeah, I think a lot of modern Christians are unaware of how masochistic and sadistic they really are. They get so hung up on the idea that they have a “get out of jail free” card that it justifies all the rest of their behavior, even when that behavior is explicitly called out in their manual lol
I have an ex who cheated on me. I’m not holding on to anger about it, I do honestly hope they’ve found happiness, but I want nothing to do with them again and if they showed up at my door I would tell them to leave.
Unless you believe in incredibly-young-earth creationism, where the OP and all your memories older than dinner last night are just a lie planted here by god to trick us into thinking the world is more than 16 hours old.
Find him in roman records, or letters about ‘this hippie bastard, Christ or something, was a total dick when he came into the office to pay his taxes today. Gods, why do I even do this fucking job? I’m having serious anxiety issues, and at 23, im past middle age. I’m afraid I won’t ever…’ Or literally any reliable source.
Your book about fucking wizards is not a reliable source, and if you get to say Jesus definitely existed; I get to say gandalf actually existed. Also magneto (that even had pictures in the primary source!)
Because its got wizards and makes a lot of strong claims, including about wizards, that aren’t corroborated NY actual real historical documents, which we have for some of the times and places mentioned, including the Roman empire, who kept absolutely fucking anal records-in fact, when it split, we literally still use the word for half of them (byzantine)as the word for ‘absolutely fucking anal retentive bureaucracy’.
Youre working with more literary analysis and like ‘oh hey here’s an accurate description of an eclipse, so this person probably saw one, they were in this part of the world, so we can guess when it was written’ type stuff than historical details. An ancient stone dildo tells us so much more about a culture than your book about wizards.
Okay, for a start, from the time of Jesus, we don’t have very many records. And the Byzantine empire didn’t exist until 300 years later, coincidentally when Christianity really took on. A good example is Pompeii. Basically all evidence we have for it is archaeological. There is only one written record which is written by a guy -surprise- who also mentions Jesus. The eruption of Mt Vesuvius was likely witnessed by around 250,000 people and killed many upper-class romans. In fact, the writings about Jesus are extraordinary as so many of them survived and exist in such a close timeframe to the existence of Jesus.
Secondly,
Because its got wizards and makes a lot of strong claims, including about wizards
Gonna assume by wizards you mean Jesus being God.
This is circular reasoning. “Jesus couldn’t have been God because there is no proof of Jesus being God, and the Bible isn’t proof because Jesus couldn’t have been God because there is no proof”
Basically you’re saying “Prove to me Jesus is God” “Okay, here’s your proof” “I reject your evidence because it claims Jesus is God when Jesus clearly isn’t God”
Thirdly, there’s archeological evidence of an early Church existing and early New Testament manuscripts from the second century. There’s even a stone tablet mentioning Pontius Pilate, which before it was discovered, critical atheists claimed was a fictional character.
No you can’t prove to Mr that ‘Jesus was god’, because you would first need to prove god exists. I would’ve heard by now if you could do that.
So anything youre saying does that I can safely dismiss as made up fantasty nonsense.
I’m saying “prove this was a real dude who lived and was much better at community organizing than carpentry, and this is the same guy who some people think was an immortal wizard who isnt actually a wizard its complicated but whats important is he fought a balrog or whatever and helped frodo get the one ring to mordor before fucking off with him to valinor”. And apparently you can’t even keep the question straight.
My favorite solution that I’ve heard, is to treat tolerance not as a moral imperative, but rather as a social contract.
Anyone who is tolerant will have tolerance extended to them. Those who are intolerant, on the other hand, can fuck right off.
Yes, I’ve never really seen the paradox as a paradox for that reason. The question, rather, should be what precisely we require from the social contract. The old question of “where is the line at which point my freedom impacts your freedom”. But no matter where that line is, it means that if someone spews hate, you’re allowed to respond in kind
(Morally, that is. If it’s covered by law then legally it should be handled through the justice system and responding in kind would fall under vigilante justice)
Yeah the Internet has insulated people from how a society works. They can “fuck off”… to where? Somewhere they’ll still vote and encourage people to follow their example? Somewhere without people telling them they’re wrong where they can become more and more extreme?
It’s like prison. Yeah let’s take all the people that have a proclivity for crime and put them together. Then teach them to obey the system by using it to punish and traumatize them. After all, they deserve it. They’ll realize that, any day now.
The way I practice it is that everyone gets a basic level of tolerance. Free speech, basic human rights, and a low level of respect and decency. But until you treat others the same there will be a social friction wherever you go and eventually a hard line. Like, no, we don’t want you in here if you’re just going to be an asshole everyday. Come back in a week and we’ll see if you’ve learned some self-control.
Some claim to have stripped Robertson screws but to be fair, the metal used and amount of torque the peson applies is the biggest reason for problems.
Phillips heads were supposed to solve the over torquing problem, but everyone didn’t listen to standard specifications and didn’t bother using them as they were meant to be made and used. The Philips head was supposed to slip once the correct torque was applied. Unfortunately, this positive benefit became a negative. With poor metals and a mismatched driver bit to screw head along with not using the screw head that was meant for the specified torque demands, the Phillips screw became known for stripping.
Trying to implement non overtorquing feature to the square bit and you will find how similar it will look to the Phillips head.
Right now, Torx is the best at not stripping, but good luck if the screw is overtorqued. Eventually, the cheap metal gives out with the screw head, or bit, snapping off.
This is a common misconception. Phillips was not supposed to solve over torquing. It was designed to allow higher torques, stop slipping and self centre. It was only really good at self centering.
A screw designed to stop it being over toqured is a terrible idea. The screw should be smaller to prevent if higher torque is needed. If over torque is an issue then reducing the power to the driver is a much better solutio (easily done in industrial setting Phillips was designed for). You can also reduce the size of the screwdriver supplied.
Fuck large format torx that are exposed to the element. I just weld a nut on them now and pound them out with an impact because you’ll break 2 torx bits for every one bolt you’d get out.
Didn’t notice that part. I think most subs lock the voting after 6 months if it isn’t a default setting. If it wasn’t a big sub that long ago, that still seems about right. If reddit still allowed you to see the upvote/downvote ratio, it would be more telling if it was universally rejected opinion or if it was closer to 50/50.
It’s wild to think, by the time this screenshot was taken that far might be embarrassing his daughter in front of her friends with this very same story.
The DBA at my old job used to keep a revolver with one bullet, and a bottle of evan williams in his cabinet. There would come many a time when he reaches for the drawer and opens it, seeing both. He always opted for the whiskey, but having seen some of our PRs, there were definitely times he lingered on the revolver.
This is a joke, btw. When’s the last time you’ve seen a dedicated DBA lol
Gosh I hope you took some creative liberties with that story… a coworker having a loaded gun at the office would be creepy as fuck - even if it was just in support of a joke.
I’m middle-aged so I’ve already had more than my fair share of fun (I’m great at taking the ‘fun’ out of ‘too much fun’), but I think my warranty expired a few years ago. I got a new and exciting autoimmune disorder and this stupid meat suit is almost literally self-destructing
The diet; the microplastics that you eat, drink and breathe; the endocrine disruptors that you huff from your home’s PCB-finished wood floor, or dishwasher detergent buildup inside you; extremely hygienic environments which make for overeager immune systems; pollution; the pesticides that Monsanto assured you are totally safe and go great with their proprietary genemodded sterile cereals which they also assure are totally safe; the near-eternal organofluorides you get exposed to because there’s a chemical plant 100km upriver with a gung-ho attitude towards waste disposal, and all the slightly scratched Teflon pans you kept using because it’s fine; or the trillion other things we’re doing to fuck up just about literally everything that lives anywhere on this planet, including our own sorry asses
sopuli.xyz
Top