Since you’re being shit on in this thread, I just wanted to thank you for being so thorough and objective in your responses here, and for your links to sources. We need more people like you on Lemmy.

Excellent post in general, but it should be noted that the meaning of “wine-dark sea” is still very much disputed.

Not on lemmy.ml there isn’t!

A true female meso?

Where science? Where meme?

This is a great resource! Thanks for your effort!

deleted by creator

Since you’re getting blasted here, I just wanted to hop on the downvote train to let you know that I think you’re exactly right on all counts.

For anyone else who was unfamiliar, the GPI is the “Global Peace Index”, and it has literally nothing to do with this conversation - it’s just the first metric TechNerdWizard42 could pull out of their ass where the US is ranked low.

Like go ahead and argue for an end to misandristic violence if you’d like.

Nah, I’ll go ahead and argue for an end to all violent crime, and not exclude the victims who aren’t lucky enough to have their gender be the reason they were murdered.

I’ve never understood this prevalent idea that murder victims are only worth caring about if their gender played a role. Like, how horribly fucked-up is it to say that some murder victims are more worthy of concern than others, especially when those victims only comprise a small minority of murders?

Being killed because of your gender and being killed because you were in the wrong place or because you looked like an easy mark are all equally bad reasons to murder someone. They’re also all phenomena that could just as easily be addressed by government programs like in the OP, and yet all we ever hear about is the “violence against women” epidemic that only affects a minority of victims.

Plus, even if the numbers of women murdered for their gender is going up (which is obviously horrible and inexcusable), that number still has a long way to go before it even approaches the much higher number of men who are already being killed every year. Like, of course it’s a horrible thing that the number of murdered women is increasing, but I fail to see how that’s so much more important than the much higher number of men who are already being killed, but that nobody is doing anything about.

I mean, the reason for it is the same as it always is - men are seen as disposable by society and therefore issues affecting them are ignored - it just sucks to constantly be inundated with evidence of just how deeply ingrained this misandry is in our society.

This but unironically. Please, please stop demonizing men and actually think about them for once.

The incredibly tiny proportion of the population who are murderers, I’d assume (less than 1 out of every 10,000 people in the US per year if my math is right).

Both sets of victims are equally dead, of course, just with a much higher percentage of those dead victims being men, and a much smaller percentage of those dead victims being the ones stories like this always seem to focus on.

I betcha ten bucks the number of men violently killed in Australia so far this year is significantly higher, just like it is every year. Weird how I can never find any articles about that though.

There’s no solution needed, since there isn’t a problem to begin with. Individuals (should) have proportional representation in the House, and states have proportional representation in the Senate, which is how it should be.

Do you think Wyomingites deserve 66.7 times the representation in the Senate?

Yes.

Salt and Sanctuary and Hollow Knight.

Thanks!

How do I turn off Yuzu’s auto-update? I don’t want my computer to connect to a website that Nintendo now owns every time I boot up the emulator.

To provide a dissenting opinion, I’ve always preferred harpsichords to pianos, which is one of the reasons I love Bach so much.

Pianos somehow sound simultaneously harsher than harpsichords with the off-putting initial clunk of the keys, and boringly muted in comparison.

The worst part of this comic is that philosophy bro is clearly not even very good at his field, since there’s a much better Cartesian parallel to be made here (and I’m not even a philosopher).

“I think, therefore I am” is actually leaving out (imo) the most important part of Descartes’s argument. He was trying to find literally anything that he could know without a doubt was true. The problem is, that’s really hard, as our existence-troubled shopper has discovered. Descartes could doubt the existence of God, he could doubt the existence of goodness, of truth. All of these things might not actually exist. Descartes could even doubt his own existence.

In fact, literally the only thing Descartes could conclude without a doubt was true was the fact that he was doubting at all. So, since that’s the only thing he could be sure of, that’s what he built his argument for rationalism upon.

This perfectly mirrors the existential crisis the so-called philosopher comes upon, but instead of starting the shopper right where Descartes started, he instead just provides what must seem like almost a non sequitur in context, since if the man is currently doubting his existence, he can also doubt that he’s thinking. What he cannot doubt, is that he is in fact doubting.

“I doubt. Therefore, I think. I think, therefore I am.”

What an ass-backward decision.