FishFace

I thought attractiveness was more important in sexyism?

Cheers, see ya!

Accusing someone of cognitive dissonance is a way of saying you proved them wrong - you found some inconsistency in their thought they couldn’t resolve.

If instead they think that it’s ok to fuck a dog, you didn’t do that. You found someone who disagrees with you (and, I’m sure, the vast majority of people) which is not special. You should describe what you found - someone who thinks it’s ok to hurt animals - instead of accusing them of inconsistency.

It matters because disagreement doesn’t mean they’re wrong. That’s something else you’re taking on the task of convincing people of. You shouldn’t cheat by lying about their beliefs, even if you do think at least one of their beliefs is disgusting - you can just let other people conclude their beliefs are disgusting.

This is largely ahistorical, ignoring factors like:

• Availability of land
• The desire for privacy
• The invention and spread of the car making living further from places of work practical
• The desire for (ones own) outdoor space

The desire for privacy should, in particular, be obvious to the fediverse’s privacy conscious users: I don’t necessarily want my parents, grandparents, children, siblings, nephews and nieces all knowing:

• What I’m reading/watching on TV
• How my music practice is going
• What I’m having for dinner
• What time I go to bed
• When and with whom I have sex
• etc

There are many reasons why it’s not sustainable to focus on them as the main unit of housing, but the rise of detached houses corresponds to living standards rising to the point where it was something people could afford. It’s not a nefarious plot orchestrated by a secret cabal.

But just to be clear, the evolution of your conversation did not show any evidence of an inconsistency in their beliefs that would amount to cognitive dissonance? Because otherwise you would have brought that up, I assume.

You know what’s really weird?

Soapboxing in a shitposting community. Bet you’re jackin’ off to it all, as well, ya perv.

So let me get this straight, you were arguing with someone, tried to lead them to a contradiction, but they actually had a consistent view on it that you didn’t like, and your conclusion is that they have cognitive dissonance?

My friend, I do not think that means what you think it means.

You’re allowed to eat fibre as a guy?

(on learning what that means)

Hey, hornyposting is that way!

The point is, each additional step adds uncertainty:

1. Musk is highly likely to be a Nazi because
2. he very likely bought Twitter in order to promote Nazis, which we know because
3. after the acquisition, it’s very likely that his actions have been to promote Nazis, which we know because
4. after the acquisition, the accounts we know have been promoted are right and far-right

In reverse order:

1. What if there are other actions in support of left-wing views our analysis has missed? What if the motivation was a belief that left-wing views were generally not being suppressed as much as right-wing views? (An easy belief to acquire, because the far-right are more violent than the far-left, so more often fall foul of rules against promotion of violence)
2. What if these far-right groups are horrible, but not actually Nazis?
3. What if Musk bought Twitter for other reasons, even though the actual effect has been promoting far-right/Nazis?

Let me be very clear: it is abundantly obvious that Musk is a Nazi. I am not trying to convince you that he isn’t. I’m not trying to convince you that there was no reason to think he was a horrible shitstain in 2023; there absolutely was. But you and others in this thread are conflating convincing evidence with incontrovertible evidence. That’s just a failure of empathy; people are unconvinced by convincing evidence all the damn time.

Ok, I agree that if musk’s objective in buying twitter was to amplify nazi voices, that confirms him as a nazi.

Do you have convincing proof that that was his objective? Convincing enough that some random guy buying a car who “doesn’t care about politics” would immediately believe he’s a nazi? I don’t think so.

He stated his aim was to remove barriers to free speech. People disagree over what speech should be protected as a matter of principle, so our hypothetical buyer may very well have thought that that was a good idea.

Have you read or watched a review of the cybertruck? I have, it did not say it was shit.

In fact the main reason I watched was to see whether they addressed the elephant in the room of how it looks like a stretch dumpster. They did not.

The hard-line anti-cybertruck stuff is absolutely not universal, same as the anti-musk stuff.

You understand the situation now. Continuing to stay “stop defending him” means you just want to cling to your black and white categorisation, and don’t want to hear anyone question it.

I don’t live in the US - very few people here are actual Nazis and cybertrucks aren’t road legal. But people are still buying model 3s and Ys.

I wouldn’t do that when the CEO has outed himself as a nazi but I’m also not so immature as to think everyone who’ll buy a product and ignore the shit the company owner does is a fucking nazi, because that’s insane.

None of those amount to Nazism. You know what does? Throwing out a couple of Hitler salutes. But that didn’t happen until later.

People who don’t want to read whatever shit comes out of his mouth

And how do you propose to know how blue-tinted those balls are without being able to tell what they’re reflecting and what the camera’s white balance is set to?

I blurred the image and took a few colour samples; the balls are grey in the image, with very slightly more red in them than green or blue. That doesn’t mean they’re actually grey; they could be slightly blue and reflecting a slightly red scene or vice versa. They could be slightly green but the camera settings have “corrected” it to look grey.

How can you tell that the “dull” ones are oxidised, as opposed to roughened, blurred due to movement or covered with some other substance like lubricant?

False.

How on earth can you tell the difference between steel and zinc at a glance?

Yesterday?

Pears are delicious. Conference pears are my favourite… Actually all other pears I’ve tried have been less good so maybe only conference pears are good. They don’t last as long as apples, but they’re amazing for about three days and decent for a few days either side. Also in my experience they don’t all ripen as uniformly as bananas, so you’re more likely to have the whole punnet edible over a week.

You can judge the ripeness of a pear by trying to wiggle the tip - the easier it is, the riper the pear, so you can eat the ripest first.

Let it be known that I love this image

Why’s that?