wonderingwanderer

Did not know you could die doing that…

That’s atrocious.

Tallyho, yip yip!

Right, mhm, cause we all know you’re totally human, right? aha, aha

Whoever created the meme was either being sarcastic or is a dumbass.

My point stands.

That makes sense

Right? My first reaction was “Is this fucking sarcasm?”

Exactly! People need to stop translating it as middle class, because it throws people off.

Nobody is coming for Joe Schmoe who makes 70k a year to take away his primary (and only) residence. Or at least, they shouldn’t be.

People these days are so bad at understanding historical context. That, like you said, “middle class” back then meant the merchant class who were neither peasants nor nobility, and that the modern-day bourgeoisie have become the de facto ruling class. Nowadays we call them “Upper class,” “Owner caste,” or “financial oligarchs.”

I’ve tried explaining this to people and they get so caught up in the nomenclature. They say “Bourgeoisie means middle class” as if that’s some definitive argument, and they ignore me when I explain to them what that actually meant in the 18th/19th centuries when it was coined.

The modern day “middle class,” which another commenter rightly describes as the “petit bourgeois,” emerged in the post-WWII era as a result of FDR’s policies and similar societal shifts around the world. It’s a subset of the working class. Even upper-middle class (doctors, lawyers, accountants, cybersecurity professionals, etc.) who make six figures and live in mcmansions are still working class. Still petit bourgeois proletarians, though they’re less likely to think in those terms.

The bourgeoisie are those who own enough capital that they can live off of investment income without actually working beyond sitting in board meetings and telling other people what to do. That’s not “middle class” anymore, except maybe in monarchical countries that still have an aristocracy. And even in most of those countries, the bourgeoisie have become more powerful than the “nobility.”

No foreskins allowed, even.

Too many people get caught up in what it’s “supposed to be” about, and they’ll skewer anyone for pointing out how it actually plays out.

“MeToo isn’t about falsely accusing men! It’s about getting victim’s voices heard!” Okay? That doesn’t change the fact that the momentum has been abused to paint with a broad brush and verifiably false accusations have ruined people’s lives.

People need to understand that if you want to press charges, you need to present evidence in court. Which means victims need to go to the hospital and get a forensics panel done within 72 hours of the incident, and the sooner the better. It has to be done before washing, too.

I understand that can be uncomfortable, and the system should be designed to keep them as comfortable as possible during the process. But it’s the only way to prove what happened in court, unless it’s on video.

And people will say I’m victim blaming by saying that the victim has a responsibility to gather evidence, but it’s the cold hard reality and I couldn’t change that even if I wanted to. And if I was a rape apologist then why would I encourage actual victims to gather indisputable proof of what happened?

But if you get falsely accused and say “There’s no evidence of that because it didn’t happen,” then people will counterintuitively perceive your denial of evidence as an admission of guilt for some reason. It’s like when they say using the word “alleged” means you’re actually guilty. No, it means something was alleged. Pointing out that something was unproven or unprovable is not a confession of wrongdoing.

It’s reached the point of absurdity to be honest, and I feel like the ones knowingly leveling false accusations are the most vehement about it, because they don’t want to get caught out in a lie. “How dare you demand evidence?” That sorta thing.

And it doesn’t help actual victims, because who’s going to take them seriously when they’re drowned out in a flood of shamelessly false accusations?

Weaponizing MeToo against innocent men as retaliation for perceived slights is counterproductive and contributes to the culture of not believing victims.

But you can’t even address these issues without someone saying “seems sus”

People downvoting you cause they can’t handle the truth that stuff like that actually happens. It conflicts with their worldview in which women never lie and men are never falsely accused.

Say this in some places and they’ll either call you a rapist or a rape apologist. It’s the same as when cops say “If you’re not doing anything wrong then why do you need rights? If you don’t have any drugs then why won’t you let me search your vehicle?”

Ask them if people should have believed Emmett Till’s accusers and they’ll say “THAT’S DIFFERENT” without really being able to explain how…

P.S., Epstein is a scumbag and all his associates should burn. Nothing in this comment is intended to be read as an excusal of them, but rather as an argument against overgeneralizing it to treat all men as guilty unless proven innocent

I see. That almost makes sense, but pi radians = 180°

Also, the value of one internal angle of a regular polygon is (n-2)×(π÷n), in which case π÷n is infinitesimally small. In other words, substituting infinity for n would be incalculable, and even if it were, adding them together wouldn’t equal infinity because the larger n is, the smaller each individual internal angle.

It’s not about colloquialism or language, there are immutable principles of geometry, and adding the internal angles of a triangle gives you 180°, whether you express it as such or as π radians or 3200 mils or something completely different doesn’t matter. That’s just changing the unit of measurement but the underlying principle is the same.

Circles can be confusing and counterintuitive, but that’s why they need an irrational number in order to be expressed. If you’re measuring the internal angle you’ll probably express it as an arc, because infinite and infinitesimal numbers are impossible to express rationally.

Take for instance, calculating angular momentum with a circle. You have to calculate it based on the tangent because the circle itself doesn’t give you any constancy otherwise.

Except that the angle of a circle’s circumference is measured as an arc with the vertex at the center, and to include an infinite number of angles you would need to reduce the degrees accordingly to avoid overlapping

A circle has 360° discreet 1° angles. While there’s a theoretically infinite number of angles within a circle, those angles would need to have an infinitesimally small fraction of a degree. If you divide a circle into 3600 angles, each angle would be 0.1°

A segment of a circle is also measured as an arc corresponding to a vertex facing outwards from the center. A triangle’s vertices on the other hand face inwards. The sum of those angles is always 180°. If you juxtapose a circle on top of it, yes, it goes all the way around since it’s a closed shape. But if you place the three vertices side by side so that their lines line up, it’ll only cover half of the circle.

There’s no inconsistency.

If you’re referring to multilateralism, international law, and rules-based-order, I’d agree. We already had that and it (mostly) worker since the second half of the 20th Century. Although there was still a lot of room for improvement, but now we’re throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But if you mean some well-intentioned do-gooder should conquer everybody and enforce their own standard of decency, then I’d say that’s a slippery slope and self-contradictory. Well-intentioned people don’t conquer the world.

Anything with crisp formatting gets labeled as AI these days — and if you use the dash, forget it!

I wish there was a choice…

I can’t speak for everybody, but I remember when the first continents were formed from geothermal vaults at the bottom of the ocean.

Or maybe that was just a mushroom trip. Either way, the dystopia has only just begun. Stop being pedantic.

Today’s world is a toe dipped in the lake of cyberpunk critique.

Transhumanism is, for the most part, still a crackpot fringe theory. Most of us aren’t brainchipped, and there are still recognizable human interactions on the web.