1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
According to my rural-raised coworker, that submersible implosion was apparently a conspiracy.
According to him, The people aboard the sub came up with a plan to escape their debt. There was nobody aboard the submarine, and it was designed to implode as a permanent diversion.
This seems to be the least crazy of all the ones here so far. Plausible but very improbable.
Why force your child to come with you?
I do think that if you’re going to fake a death this is just about the best way to do it, though.
Maybe the just disappear like in witness protection and this dude didn't want to leave his son alone? It's too far fetched though. Given all the questionable things Oceangate did, independent verification of the implosion sound waves and finding the actual debris, it is extremely improbable it was staged.
I've seen so many dog shit/brain dead takes on Reddit about various topics that I don't think I can even remember any of them specifically.
So instead, I'm choosing this take on climate change by Ben Shapiro.
It doesn't matter what side of this argument you fall on. Who is buying a house in an area that is slowly being flooded?
Did you honestly not understand what he means?
I don't think anyone understands what he means, least of all himself.
Also he needs to Google "straw man".
How is that meme not a straw man?
Because his explanation is bullocks. The whole argument is.
What exactly is bullocks about it?
The sea level doesn't just rise one day. It's a slow process that'll happen over decades. Many of the people living in those houses now probably want to sell in the near future while they still can. They might not get back what they paid but in 5 years you're not going to get even that so better cut your losses. At some point the coastline gets so close that those houses will just be abandoned, demolished and people will have moved further inland.
It’s focused on some ideal coastline that fits the argument well.
In reality you will see storms that set underwater whole metropoles repeatedly, think like New Orleans a few years back, but on a yearly base.
And when it comes to the really big metropoles in Asia, they don’t have much options to properly relocate millions of people at ones.
The likes of Shapiro won’t welcome them in the USA, even if they promise to stay in the rural centers.
I'm having some trouble understanding what exactly is the confusion here. If the sea level rises it's not like people will just keep living underwater. They have to move somewhere else. Entire cities and towns has to be relocated elsewhere. Besides building massive sea walls there's just no other option. This in no way implies it's not going to absolutely suck for the people living there. Ofcourse it does.
What exactly is it that Ben is wrong about here? This is really confusing to me
He’s pretending that this will just go smoothly with the help of the free market.
Are we watching the same video? At what point is he implying that?
His trope and that of the people he finances is climate change denial and libertarianism. It doesn’t need to be in that video, but that’s the context he philosophizes in.
I haven't heard him ever denying climate change. At best he has just been questioning its severity of it. Even in this talk in question he says: "I'm not saying that it's not happening. It may be happening. I'm happy to say that it may be happening. I may even be happy to say that it's probably happening"
Someone who you convinced via a massive disinformation platform that it's not happening 🤔🧐
In my circles I'm the one with the strage takes. For example I don't believe in free will. I believe we're probably living in a simulation and if we ever create AGI it's most likely going to end us. Also we're probably the only intelligent life in the universe.
The free will one and the fear of an AI uprising is understandable, even if I disagree myself, but the other two... What makes you believe that in the entire universe, we're the only planet that managed intelligent life? And the simulation thing is just crazy.
We may not be the only intelligent life in the entire universe but the only ones in our corner of it and that's why there is no signs of alien civilizations anywhere to be seen. I've also heard people much smarter than me give mathematical explanations as to why the evolution of intelligent life is way more unpropable than most people think.
Why I believe in simulation theory is just statistics; eventually we will develop technology that is able to run such simulations and we're going to create thousands of them. From that point on when new consciouss being is born it's unlikely it appears in our world instead of the thousands of simulations we're running. I just think this applies to us aswell. For us to be living in the base reality we'd either have to be extremely lucky or be the first ones to create such simulations.
In my eyes, if it's extremely unlikely that we're real, it's even more unlikely that another species is not only real, but has significantly better technological advancements than us as well. It's just the same problem with extra steps. But the thing about the simulation thing, is that it's completely unfalsifiable and has no impact on our reality even if it's true. So there isn't really any need to consider it outside of a philosophical conversation.
Yeah I agree. Simulation or not - I wouldn't expect anything to be different. Life is just as precious even if this is not the base reality because for us it effectively is.
Have you ever heard of the Dark Forest theory?
Sure, as well as dozen other suggested explanations for the fermi's paradox. This just happens to be the one I'd place my bets on.
Someone I used to work with went through a period where they were overworked and stressed out, but at the same time having some really bad thoughts about free will being an illusion. The theory was something like this:
Everything since the big bang is governed by physics, and Earth and all life on Earth is the result of particles coming together and interacting in interesting ways over billions of years. If this is true, everything we do is a foregone conclusion, and you could simulate and predict anything if you had a computer able to simulate the universe.
It sounds kind of plausible to be honest, but there is just no point in entertaining it. If we don't have free will, we'll never know for sure and cannot change it. If it feels like we have free will does it matter? Anyway, my colleague quit a short while later and went on to do other things and seemed much happier, so I guess it was just a weird period in his life.
That's basically my argument aswell. This however doesn't imply fatalism. It's not like you can just sit around and see what happens. Or you can but nothing happens except you'll just get bored and then the desire to do something else appears. Then you get up and go do that all the while thinking you made that choice.
I just chose to downvote your comment /s
Lack of free will doesn't mean choices aren't real. Just that what ever you choose is the only thing you could have chosen. You could not have done otherwise.
That doesnt make sense 😂
If you're standing in line at the grocery store looking at the chocolate bars next to the register you can either grab one or not. These are your choices. If you just ate a huge pizza before you probably don't feel like eating chocolate too but if you're hungry you can't resist it. In both cases you're making a choice but in both cases the choice is influenced by outside factors that you did not choose.
What does it mean when you say that you could have done otherwise? If you're super hungry and can't resist buying the chocolate bar then that's the only thing you could have done. If you go back in time to the same situation and nothing else changes then you're still hungry as fuck and are going to grab the chocolate bar. Something in your circumstances has to change in order for you to act differently but it's still outside force affecting your behaviour.
The one I saw a couple of posts above this one about The Lord of the Rings...
I am the one with strangest takes and I didn't had competition so far.
