Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]

I was raised Catholic and left it at a young age and spent a lot of time uprooting the brainworms so I don’t think there’s much left. However, whenever I can’t find something I really need and start getting stressed, I’ll still recite, “Dear St. Anthony, please come around, my X has been lost and cannot be found.” It’s a useful way to calm down and focus instead of freaking out and panicking.

Other than that, I still retain a lot of the theology I learned in high school, and I can still sometimes get a little opinionated about various things even though I have no dog in the fight.

Years ago I tried my hand gambling on politics on PredictIt, and I didn’t lose all that much, but there were a couple bets I lost that seemed like sure things. Mostly the lesson I learned is that talk is cheap and there’s no real consequences for people saying one thing and doing the other.

For example, in the 2016 election, there was a market on whether no-name Carly Fiona would qualify for the CNN debate, and by the rules they set she didn’t qualify, but there hadn’t been as many polls in the right timeframe as had been expected. Still, they released a statement days before the debate, saying “rules are rules,” so I took a bet at like 90% odds thinking it was completely safe - then they let her in at the last minute and I lost big. I don’t remember the exact circumstances, but I think I lost a fair bit on a market about Trump meeting with Kim Jong Un, which was a pretty chaotic market. The most chaotic market I ever saw, which I avoided and wanted no part of, was whether Bernie would win Iowa in 2020, and watching it closely in real time made it very obvious that some really shady stuff was going on. Probably the most I ever lost was Biden winning the 2020 primary, which is about when I got out of it.

I would not recommend gambling like that because if you have money on the line there’s an incentive to be glued to the news in a way that can be really unhealthy. Honestly the stress was worse than the money I lost. It’s more trouble than it’s worth, the fees will get you, also it’s generally more about predicting what the market will think so you can profit off the swings, and personally I think it’s kind of a distasteful way to engage in politics. At the same time, it can be a learning experience - it definitely got me in the habit of asking “And what consequences will this person face if they’re lying off their ass?” every time I see a headline about someone saying something, and of not paying as much attention to statements in general.

Tfw you’re hanging out in a cell getting ready to testify against a bunch of super-powerful people, in a prison that’s prevented every attempted suicide in decades, after having made repeated statements that you have absolutely no intention of killing yourself, and then suddenly both the guards leave to go take a nap, and at that exact time, you notice that the multiple cameras watching your cell all randomly glitch off at the same time, so at that moment you decide to kill yourself using a method that’s indistinguishable from being murdered

I thought that there was one guy named Michael J—son who used his fame as an NBA star to launch a career as pop singer, radically changing his appearance in the process. I don’t think I realized they were different people until high school.

That’s completely wrong lol. Nowhere is there an assumption that birthdays are randomized each time, you just don’t understand the math.

I’m sure it’s not the worst but I felt like the adaptation of Watership Down changed the tone/message compared to the book. Now granted the infamous violence is present in the book (though seeing it is more visceral than reading about it). But in the book there’s a nice story at the end where Hazel is injured (iirc) and is taken in by a little girl and her parents who take care of him while he recovers before releasing him back to the wild (which only adds to his legend, of course).

Removing this bit, the only positive interaction with a human, makes the message feel more like, “Humans are bastards and inherently anethma to the natural world, which is also a brutal war of all against all even down to the cutest softest creatures.” It just makes you feel bad, whereas the book might make you feel bad at times but it also offers an example of what you can do right. It’s kind of a pet peeve when a work with environmentalist themes falls into that line of “Humans are the problem and there’s nothing you can do but feel bad about it.”

Modlog says “inappropriate name.”

We don’t share selfies on Hexbear due to privacy and safety concerns.

Hope you like us!

that the Jews conducted a genocide of the slavs during the societ union

That sounds absolutely wild, I’ve never heard anything like that

No, although we are skeptical about certain claims of genocide. There’s a big difference between denying well-documented genocides like the Holocaust, vs being skeptical when a source starts making claims without evidence. Generally I like to think we do a decent job of investigating sources and considering multiple perspectives from around the world. You’re welcome to ask about any specific cases.

I’m gonna be upfront because you seem like someone who would respect that, so here are some of our positions that might get labelled that way:

• Many of the more egregious claims about Chinese Uighurs can be traced back to one guy, Adrian Zenz, who used some very questionable methodology to arrive at his claims. We’ll push back against any claims that rely only on his word, and some people call this genocide denial, but we don’t believe in taking dubious evidence as credible just to avoid being accused of that.

• During the war in Ukraine, Russia has transported war orphans to families in Russia, which some people have labelled as genocide because they’ll be raised culturally Russian instead of culturally Ukrainian. I don’t think the term is appropriate, because imo getting orphans to safety is the priority over preserving culture. Opinions about the war differ, and the whole situation is very fucked, but every war produces orphans and not every war is a genocide.

• We’re critical of Double Genocide Theory, the idea that Soviet actions in WWII constituted a genocide on the same level of the Holocaust, a theory which has been criticized by many Jewish historians as trivializing the Holocaust. That doesn’t mean Soviet actions are above criticism, but we don’t like when people equate them with the Nazis.

I think that covers the main things people criticize us for. Like I said you’re welcome to pick our brains and judge for yourself what you think of us. We don’t have any animosity against any ethnic group and racism is not tolerated.

By the way:

A Hexbear admin also gets involved and sends a message to the mods of c/196 demanding the removal of the sub-Lemmy’s banner, because it contains “fuck tankies”, arguing that tankies is a slur.

This is blatantly false. Our mod did not “demand” that they remove the banner, they asked politely, not expecting much to come of it, and absolutely nobody ever called “tankie” a slur. What actually happened is that after Moss posted this message to make fun of it, she used a word derived from “liberal” and “r----d,” and when someone criticized it she removed their comment, with modlog listing the reason as “imagine being this braindead.” When we pushed back on it, Ada scolded her about it but did not remove her as a mod. Since our mods and community had been making changes to better accommodate blahaj (they didn’t mention that we stayed out of their second thread once they actually requested that, or that the lemm.ee admin gave us permission to comment on their thread), we decided at that point that the effort wasn’t worth it.

Come to Hexbear! We love our trans and neurodivergent comrades, we’re super political all the time, and we have way thicker skin

Yeah, it is a general criticism that can apply to a lot of thought experiments. And don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the problem, it’s just that I also enjoy critiquing it.

I believe most people’s initial response to the original problem is to pull, but far fewer people will push the fat man, and this is framed as highlighting a contradiction in people’s beliefs. In reality, it shows that if you create an unrealistic scenario, it trips up people’s intuitions. One reason people’s intuitions tell them not to push the fat man is because their moral intuition is outweighed by their physical intuition. We all know that pushing a guy off a bridge won’t actually stop a trolley (and even if it would, we can’t know that), so if we start to consider doing something like that, our brains say, “No stop it idiot don’t do that.” But it’s not telling us anything about morality, it’s just telling us “that’s not how physics works, dummy.”

Our intuitions are grounded in a world where physical and scientific laws apply and where we can never have perfect knowledge of future events, and the further you break from that, the less useful they are. But if the idea with the trolley problem is to help us identify what (if any) consistent logical precepts we can apply that match our moral intuitions, then we need to have simple, straight-forward questions. The original trolley problem is a little contrived, but doesn’t break from reality nearly as hard as variations like the fat man. That means that the intuitive response to the original problem is more trustworthy and reliable, compared to whatever we feel about the more contrived ones.

Imo pulling the lever is the correct answer, and whenever I see a variation that tries to contradict that, I look for ways that that variation breaks from reality in ways that would trip up my intuition. So in this case my intuition tells me not to convict, in “contradiction” of saying I’d pull the lever, but that’s because my intuition hasn’t internalized all the assumptions about magical psychic foreknowledge and stuff. When I consider the problem with all those assumptions, then I say, “Oh well in that case it’s just like the trolley problem so pull,” and in some cases that answer might make me come across as a psycho, but that’s only because the hypothetical doesn’t allow me to consider the full effects, risks, and ramifications that the action would have in the real world.

So that’s my full solution to the problem. I studied physics in uni so sometimes I might be a bit too inclined to find a final objective answer to a problem that’s supposed to be open-ended lol

As usual with variations of the trolley problem, there’s a lot of hidden assumptions baked into the question to oversimplify a more complex question, which leads to weird results.

For example, I’m given perfect knowledge of a lot of future events. I know that the crowd will riot if I don’t convict, and I know that any attempt made by myself or anyone else to reason with them will fail. I also know that people won’t riot over convicting an innocent person. There are all sorts of social consequences that could result from my decision, people gaining or losing faith in the system, an effect on my own career and ability to make future decisons, setting a precedent of expanding state power, the possibility that closing the case would let the actual perpetrator run free and cause more problems, etc.

If you ask me to make all the assumptions necessary to frame in the same way as the original trolley problem, then my answer has to be the same (lose one to save five), but those assumptions cause the hypothetical to be utterly divorced from reality. The real answer is not to convict because you’re not a psychic.

If you are too attached to abstract ideas of “Good,” to the point of standing on principle even if it means defeat, then you may get defeated and replaced by someone worse, and things may be much worse for everyone if you did whatever was necessary to win.

However, if you are too attached to the evil approach, then you may become too caught up in self-indulgent antihero fantasies and lose sight of what actually works. For example, no actionable information was acquired through the use of torture during the War on Terror. Movies and TV shows almost always depict it working because that self-indulgent antihero fantasy sells, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Violating international law could also (depending on the rest of the factions in this hypothetical) cause diplomatic repercussions such as sanctions or even another faction joining the war on the other side. Evil doesn’t always get away unpunished.

Every faction, (as well as every person), has a variety of different approaches that they could apply, and what determines which of these approaches work and don’t work is the system in which they exist and their position in it. “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most adaptable to change.”

It’s worth noting that the act has been criticized by Malasia’s queer community as exacerbating tensions and reinforcing negative stereotypes. I don’t have a strong opinion but it’s generally best to listen to the concerns of the community you’re trying to stick up for before doing a political stunt on their behalf (I’m queer btw)

doesn’t seem to tolerate basic slurs

A lot of them do! You can find the list here