Why do I have to care about sports in order to care about trans folks who care about sports?
Do I have to care about every last hobby or fandom before I can weigh in on the justice of whether black people or gay people or poor people should be allowed to participate?
The real world uses gender neutral pronouns all the time, all over the world.
Sometimes the “realism” critique is certainly pedantic and unproductive, but other times what’s really meant is contradiction. Situations should make sense within the fictional world. And in the fictional world of DC, norms around politics and economics are portrayed to be analogous to western neoliberalism with capitalism assumed and unquestioned. So with the Wayne family being a relatively well-regarded billionaire family like the Gates or the Buffets, there is still the issue that it is clear under the current system and that portrayed in DC universe that such wealth cannot be accumulated and sustained without massive exploitation of working class people somewhere along the line. So billionaire + “good guy” starts to become more of a glaring contradiction even in DC. But sure, we can explain it away as fiction with magically ethical capitalists. The interesting thing about the billionaire Wayne discussion though, is when people apply this fictional view of capitalism to how they interpret the real world. And now we’re back to propaganda.
What I would say that sets West Wing and B99 apart is sometimes there’s a tonal difference or way in which certain themes are handled/portrayed that signals to the viewer that the writers acknowledge this isn’t what real life is like but we hope one day we can get there. And it’s a spectrum right. Some do this to varying degrees, other more propagandistic media do not.
I tend to lump it in with The West Wing as idealistic wish fulfilment of how we’d like things to be, or a picture of our human potential.
This is not a generational shift. The iron dome of irony is a tried and true coping technique for the brutality of teenage culture where the rule of cool rules with an iron fist and being uncool means social death. And what is cool shifts at a moment’s notice, yet uncool is forever. So normies learn to armour themselves by treating everything ironically to pre-empt any whiff of uncool. Because at the very least, it’s never uncool to make fun of something. This carries forward into one’s 20s when some begin to rediscover the coolness of being authentic, sincere, and genuine regardless of what others think. So then you have the reaction of radical acceptance, not yucking others’ yum, respect for others’ interests, etc. GenX had their equivalent, even Boomers. It’s part of growing up. And of course not everyone gets there.
Well yes you are absolutely correct from a materialist standpoint. If you limit reality to material things, then truths are limited to material knowledge. Emergent properties such as subjective experience, society/culture, and ultimately meaning and meaningfulness are excluded from what is considered reality and truth, except for their material correlates. And this is why philosophers moved on from materialism because, while highly fruitful, it was ultimately insufficient in capturing all forms of knowledge.
I prefer a pragmatic blend of constructivist realism.
I see it as a heightened period of different people “trying shit out” when it comes to new gender identities. None of these are necessarily definitive norms that will define future society. As with any aspect of language and culture, it’s a part of an ongoing process of evolutionary change, adaptation, and discovery. Some might call it a church, some might call it a shifting paradigm, but it’s always going to be a bit messy and won’t necessarily make perfect sense right away.
There are no lies. All perception involves interpretation.
They’ve moved onto Ciri now for Witcher 4. Mad that the character doesn’t look like a teenager now that she’s aged into her 30s.
Lol that’s some serious cherry picking my dude. One is one of the best action movies of the last 20 years and launched a franchise. The other is a middling coming of age story made for streaming. There are plenty of bland action movies just as bad as Damsel and without an ounce of activism that come out every year. Try comparing it to Get Out, Everything Everywhere All At Once, Mad Max Fury Road, hell even Inglorious Basterds might be considered activism now that fascism is back in fashion.
My friend, the messages that only uneducated people can be pro-fascist and educated people are immune to propaganda is propagandistic. It’s reductive and misleading. Evil does not limit itself to the ignorant. Still,I think we have different meanings of “educated”
Sure we can quibble about the median quality of a college education in the US, you you have to draw the line somewhere. But the issue I’m pointing at is people get lazy conflating education with social progressiveness and egalitarianism and dismiss people with different worldviews as “uneducated”. There are plenty of intelligent well-educated people who are morally bankrupt or deeply mistaken. After all, eugenics came from some of the most “educated” minds in the world.
Yeah… that’s the uneducated citizens part dude…
Yes and no. Yes, it is true that more uneducated people voted for Trump, and lack of education means people do not understand the risks and negative implications of voting for Trump over Harros for themselves. No, that argument doesn’t explain the whole picture. It is also true that educated people who understand the implications voted for him anyway because they saw it as benefiting them/their worldviews. Keep in mind half of college educated male voters and over a third of college educated female voters went for Trump.
Great question! The reason why I was using the 2017 report is that the Guardian arrival you originally referred to was from 2017, so I looked at the report they were working off of. While the article is still misleading (shame Guardian) the notion that a small proportion of companies, both state and private owned (100-200), are responsible for the majority (>50%) of global emissions.
Looking at the updated graph of annual emissions, it seems like this is still true, though I haven’t counted the companies. Again I agree the 72% figure is misleading, but I am pushing back on the alternative implication that relatively few companies are not actually making up the majority of annual emissions.
Yes and no. The Carbon Majors Report provides two ways of looking at global emissions: Cumulative and Annual. The table you showed reflects the Cumulative Emissions Since Industrial Revolution (1751-2022)
While not reported in the Guardian article, the same 2017 report stated 72% (p5) of global industrial GHGs in 2015 came from 224 companies, with the sample breakdown in the 2017 report, Appendix II (p15). As you can see, pretty much all of those producers are private/state-owned companies and much closer to the current picture of annual emissions. I’m not sure what counts as “industrial”, but crunching the raw numbers of 30565/46073 Mt (Global Emissions, statcan) it works out to about 66% of global emissions in 2015.
I find it’s helpful to practice parsing political arguments and recognizing underlying worldviews as well as understanding and applying my own. With the right attitude it can be a compassionate and worthwhile way to put good out into the world. But still, have to be measured with how invested you get and know when to walk away.
No. Rent and mortgage are two different things. One is a fee for service and one is a loan.
If your home that you own doubles in market value and you decide to sell it, you pay off the mortgage (loan) and keep the profit (capital gain). If you are renting and the home is sold, you gain nothing.
If your home that you own burns down, you still owe the bank the money you borrowed for purchase (mortgage). If you are renting the home that burned down, you don’t owe anybody money. There is to service to pay a fee for anymore.
Like sure, fuck capitalism. But we don’t need to misrepresent how these systems work.
The difference is less that it’s in some circumstances only marginally better. Rather, it’s more that when you advocate for better coverage in EU, the pushback might be more along the lines of “that’s too expensive or an inefficient use of highly limited taxpayer dollars, but I’m open to continuing to evaluate the impact and economics of it”. In the US, sometimes the pushback is “you don’t like it? Then GTFO, you communist traitor!”
Now that’s just 尺卂匚丨丂ㄒ😅