old profile: /u/antonim@lemmy.world
On the left is soyak (soyboy wojak): https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/soy-boy-face-soyjak
I Fucking Love Science was a Facebook page that posted pop-sci articles.
On the right is Ted Kaczynski AKA the Unabomber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
LG's recent software update has forcibly installed Microsoft Copilot, an AI assistant, on smart TVs without removal options, sparking widespread user backlash over privacy, bloatware, and loss of control. This highlights growing tensions in smart devices, where monetization often overrides user preferences.
Sure is ironic that the article summary is itself AI-generated.
Pretty sure it was Scottish English. Does anyone outside of super rural places actively use Scots anyway?
Idk, I recently heard some thick Scottish English and I couldn't understand literally anything. That might be in part due to the fact that I'm not a native speaker, but still I believe people outside the British isles would struggle with it.
Some of the uniformity is a result of cultural domination of specific centres and now unavoidable loss of original dialectal variation.
You peppered your comment with some really nonsensical assumptions about me and my position, but I'll single out just this one:
If hate is inherent
This most directly shows your inability to hold a serious dialogue. Not once did I even imply this ridiculous idea to be true. I criticised your position, but you could only assume that I hold the mirror opposite view, and not perhaps some position outside of Disney love-vs.-hate morality altogether. There is no room for nuance with you, all that can be discussed is the mystical "inherent human nature", and any other way to conceive of human behaviour is simply impossible. This is even more radically closed-down than usual religious thinking.
If you can't respect just the basic literal meaning of the words I wrote and instead have to make up what I said, there can be no dialogue.
I'm not interested in fighting you either, I was just asking, perhaps the interesting conversation still could've occurred. (Admittedly that other reply to you is really good and extensive, and I wouldn't have much to add after that.)
So, all humans have inherently tend to care for and be nice to other people, but people can be bad to other species, and evil in human society arises when people (for whatever reason) decide to view other people as whole other species. Did I get that right?
Have you ever discussed these ideas with other people, IRL or online?
What would the conversation be about exactly? Legitimacy of language institutions, or?
Dictionaries can also note hyperbolic (and other "deformed") uses of words, especially when commonplace, I see no problem with that. You have some odd expectations from dictionaries.
And then the speakers from insular communities get told to fuck off with their special definitions, or they're so persistent that the new definition catches on. Either way, problem solved.
The word "literally" still serves its old purpose just fine, along with the new one.
They all work the same way. Some institution saying otherwise doesn't chance that.
You've picked a difficult idea to defend, alright, but you literally just ignored my main question.
Why would a human, whose supposed intrinsic tendency is towards care, helping, etc., teach the opposite?
Until you answer this directly I see no point in further discussion, especially as in the rest of the comment you're slipping further and further into absurd idealism (along with underhanded accusations against me just because I don't share the same Disney cartoon sort of conception of racism as you do).
From being taught
And who teaches? An another human, right? But doesn't that human also inherently love other humans? So he must've been taught to hate too. If you go step by step into the past, at what point is hate introduced into human society?
Babies are not fully developed human beings, they don't have a society, culture, or almost anything else, including basic survival mechanisms, so they're a pointless comparison. It is ridiculous to think they, left to their nature, wouldn't develop communities, trust and suspicion, stereotypes, etc. that can eventually build up to racism. We have documented wars among literal apes, humans are definitely not much nicer in their natural state (whatever that might be - it can't be just "being a baby").
A significant part of Europe did not participate in the scramble for Africa, which can in part explain OP pic - the guy is from Poland.
There was no Berlin conference in 1845.
Anyway, each country has its own educational system, with different scope and methods of teaching history (unavoidably wildly different due to different national histories), so making any blanket statement on what is taught in Europe is a minefield. Now, I'm pretty sure most kids in Europe are taught about the colonisation of Africa, but how exactly it is presented, how much weight is given to it, how it is integrated into broader cultural discourse (including e.g. does anyone even talk or care about it outside school history lessons) can vary wildly.
Practically speaking, why would Poles have to care e.g. about English colonisation of India a whole lot? Do you really think such stuff can be relevant enough to strongly shape people's worldview?
Ads being a replacement for paying applies to internet services (social media, news sites, etc. that you can use for free). When you have billboards on the side of the road, you still have to pay the road toll. When you see ads in public transport, you still have to pay the ticket. When ads are shown on a TV channel, you still have to pay the subscription.
Online ads, as insufferable as they are, are still more clearly justifiable from the end user's point of view than traditional ones.