That is actually impressively dumb

Like seriously, I think he really really put effort into being dumb here. You can’t be just randomly that ignorant here, I think

Isn’t that kinda satire?

I can’t :DDD

<arbitration clause: if you sign up, you cannot make any claims against cRazi_man. in case we fucked up, I guess sucks for you, byeeeee>

Okay, this thread escalated quickly

Seriously, I’d also recommend to unscrew the screen and screw it back together. For me it made wonders. And if this also doesn’t bring you anything, you should text support - in the end you have a warranty for a reason, right

Well, at least now I feel that Musks tweet about liberty and being oppressed and blah are even more funny than ever. He has literally the wealth to buy countries, if he would wish to.

Holy cow, they can lose 90% of their wealth and still be above 100 mil. The math checks out, but my gosh, how rich are they?!

That’s enough internet for today

Me too!

Psychology student hère.

In short, our professor explained to us that there are two approaches as to how subconscious thoughts and emotions work. The first one is that sometimes thought processes are subconscious, but they can be “brought to light” relatively easily; this perspective has been well-validated and compatible with modern psychology. The second approach is the psychoanalytic one - that some thoughts and emotions are forcefully kept away from the consciousness in order to self-regulate. This position has been debunked and doesn’t seem to have empirical basis.

That’s why classical psychoanalysis today, where you dig deep into thoughts and feelings in order to go beyond the “defensive forces” of the mind (in German also called Abwehr), is seen as outdated.

That is true only to some extent. Frances Wright, who admittedly lived later than Washington (1795-1852), was one of the most vocal public abolitionists in the USA to the extent of my knowledge. Specifically, she was a feminist and abolitionist. Both she and Jefferson were Epicureans and knew the sources well, but she drew other, more ethical, conclusions, and supported the fight for abolition.

It is important to keep in mind that she was living later than Jefferson, and thus had access to different sources than he did. However, her example demonstrates that it was not impossible, even back then, to recognize that owning slaves was wrong and unethical. While I agree that it was typical for the elites to do it regardless, I want to emphasize that the sources to recognize that slavery was wrong were already there. Many people simply chose to ignore it.

Thus my stance is that it definitely was a sign of the times that it was widespread, I think the defining feature of the time was that people chose to ignore ethical conclusions. It isn’t just a sign of the time that people kept slaves - it was sign of the time that people chose to keep slaves even though they could’ve recognized that it was wrong and unethical.

I hope my point is understandeable. Just adding my two cents :)

I think you meant Lemmy.world instead of reddit.world. or have I missed part of the joke here?

I absolutely agree. Very well written, and you did an amazing job by highlighting the difference between responsibility (which is neutral) and fault (which is negative) here.

No, that would be socialism!!1!!! No socialism in 'Murica!!1!!!1!

Amazing game :))

My eyes…

Wilddddd. That was just crazy.