“Lalalala you can’t send me to concentration camps if I can’t hear Trump lalalala”

Removed by mod

If you’re lost as to how that relates to the topic this conversation is beyond you.

Me: “I want to purchase healthy foods.”

You: Theres plenty of junk food out there that “brands” itself as healthy.

That’s true, so now what?

Do we give up on healthy food entirely and buy the chips for dinner?

Believe it or not, I think carrots and a bag of chips “branded” as healthy can be distinguished between.

Abuse isn’t the solution to miseducation.

A lot of these times departments are trying to justify their own existence by using data in self serving ways.

If you are reading a spreadsheet on user data you might notice that people are going into search, quickly finding something and leaving the site.

Your boss is screaming at you that the higher ups want more “engagement” so you start tweaking the search.

After a few button presses you see that on average people are searching, clicking on a video and watching for a bit, watching another video, going back into search and looking up more videos, scrolling and then finally clicking and watching a full video.

You run to your boss and brags that search now has 3x engagement as people are watching more videos for longer per search.

We all get a promotion and celebrate how much better search is now that people are spending time in it longer.

If you care about the rights of Gazans then the ultimate right is the right of self determination and a right to life.

Those are two rights.

I believe the right to life is the ultimate right as one can’t access self determination if they are dead.

This is why the genocide takes priority over any worries about legitimacy.

So in that sense you should critically support Hamas in the Palestinian struggle against the settler-colonizers.

I support the Palestinian struggle against their colonizers but I appreciate that you put the word “critically” in their because I do also want to be able to say terrorism isn’t a good response and be able to say it’s wrong when anyone targets innocent civilians intentionally.

You want pretty elections in an apartheid ghetto.

No I want to stop the apartheid ghetto.

“Legitimacy” means nothing in a war zone. There’s nothing to talk about until the bombs stop.

How about they not have an apartheid ghetto and be integrated into a democratic process? Again, in order to do that they must not be under siege for decades…

Yeah how about that?

Haha I’m getting a but frustrated at the reading comprehension on this thread but at least we agree.

If you read through my replies you’ll see me consistently making this point as well.

“Legitimacy” is not a concept that exists in a war zone. The Palestinians are being robbed of the opportunity of legitimate representation by their occupiers.

I never felt I was presenting a moral framework based on legitimacy. You seem to be implying that just because I can’t label guerrilla fighters as a “legitimate government” I don’t think they have a moral right to resist?

Legitimacy and morality are completely separated to me. I think Trump is a perfect example of that. I accept he was elected as a legitimate leader, but he clearly has no moral justification for power and it is our moral duty to resist despite his “legitimacy”.

We must prioritize defending human rights before social constructs.

That’s why “legitimacy” breaks down here, legitimacy is a social construct we can only focus on in a collaborative environment when we’re not killing each other. It’s agreeing to international borders, boundaries, and non interference in each other’s governments. If we all start invading everyone then the construct we’ve built on a philosophy of peace time goes away which is why as you point out if it were a moral framework would be really flimsy.

Legitimacy as a moral judgement I think only works in a world where Israel is acting in good faith and actually wants to avoid war crimes and is held accountable for its crimes in a court of law.

Genocide is so much worse than illegitimate rulers so I’m really not interested in the legitimacy of Hamas as a question to begin with. Doesn’t seem important. I know they have a moral right to resist and whoever does the resisting isn’t going to be “legitimate” until after they’ve already won so I’m not gonna judge them for it.

Ideally let’s stop the genocide, let’s build back infrastructure, then we can hold elections and see who’s legitimate.

That’s a great example to bring up.

Ukraine has declared martial law and with that suspended elections that should have in peacetime occurred last year. Martial law continues to get extended 90 days at a time by parliament and this has happened 14 times now.

As I mentioned earlier, the longer time goes on without an election the less legitimate a government becomes. 4 year terms, 5 year terms, 6 years, I don’t think the micro details of it really matter but as a rule of thumb there should be elections at least twice a generation.

If we say a generation is 25-30 years that means every 12-15 years at a minimum.

Ukraine elected Zelensky in 2019, so it’s been 6 years since the last election.

All of this seems reasonable at this stage for me to say Ukraine’s government is 100% legitimate.

If 4 more years pass and it’s been a decade, I’m starting to think it’s time to give the next generation a shot at defending their land.

At 15 years i think its lost its legitimacy. Though I will likely still support it’s right to defend itself against occupation, I think a legitimate government would allow the new generation of Ukrainians to have a say on that and elections are necessary.

What are your thoughts? In 20 years do you think it’s okay if Ukraine still hasn’t held elections?

Yes, countries can invade and occupy other countries, suspend their governments, block future elections and violate their civil rights.

That’s what’s so bad about it.

But this shouldn’t be a surprise, Israel is doing much worse human rights abuses to the Palestinians than simply revoking the legitimacy of their government. They’re massacring them, they’re starving them and blowing up aid workers trying to bring in food, not even to mention the sexual violence I can’t even stomach thinking about.

It’s important to understand the severity of what a genocide implies. These are a people without a voice. If someone doesn’t stop the occupation and reallow legitimate elections, the very idea of a Palestinian people might be eradicated.

Hamas aren’t the ones preventing elections.

No, we’ve already gone over that it’s their occupiers fault for that

They don’t lose legitimacy just because other parties have illegally halted the electoral process. They’re not the obstacle.

No they do not.

They lose legitimacy over time as it becomes longer and longer since the last election.

75% of the population has never had an opportunity to vote for anyone at all and 50% is too young to have even been born at the last election. I don’t see how we can say these people have legitimate representation despite that.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have blocked elections since then.

Right, this is the primary reason I would argue that there’s no official representative.

But it sounds as though you’re presenting it to counter the point I was making. Can you elaborate on how this fact legimizes Hamas as an official representative?

But you are right that half of Gazans weren’t even born when Hamas won the last elections.

While that’s correct its even worse, once you factor in the minimum voting age of 18 years old, over 75% of Gazans were unable to participate in the last election.

What? There aren’t any?

If I explained to you ghettos are horrific and violate human rights, because as one example among so many other issues we would likely agree on, they strip a people of their right to fair elections and representation in the determination of their future.

And that the fact that Palestinians have not been free to organize, form new political parties and campaign in safe and uncoerced elections is a direct violation of their rights and the party to answer and blame for this is the one occupying them and preventing this from happening…

What are we disagreeing about?

What I disagree with is that an election an entire generation before the present that people alive never voted in should not be held up to represent their current politics and beliefs as a nation.

If you think about a number line, multiplying 2 by -1 takes you to -2. Multiply it again by -1 and its back at 2.

If you think of the arrow from 0 to 2, all you did was rotate that arrow by 180 degrees to point along the negative axis and back again.

Multiplication by -1 is already a rotation of 180 degrees!

All were doing now is extending that concept to 90 degrees by imagining a second line perpendicular to the original number line.

Two 90 degree rotations need to get to -1 to complete the 180 degree rotation we already expect in normal multiplication.

Giving it the symbol i, this means definitionally i * i = -1. It has to because -1 flips us around the other way on the number line.

That means i is the square root of negative 1.

Any values that use i to store information, even time, could be called “imaginary time”. Really it’s just constantly oscillating between the real and imaginary spaces like a constantly spinning arrow.

Hamas is the official representative of Gaza. They were elected.

What makes you say this? Do you not realize this “election” happened all the way back in 2006?

Do you know how long ago that was? 19 years.

Do you know what the median age in Gaza was in 2020 (before this recent escalation in genocide)? 18 years old.

In my opinion 20 years per election might not be an ideal timescale for a democracy.

I’m trying to assume good faith so I’m confused why you’d argue that’s adequate representation?

A particle is also a wave, a wave moves back and forth between -X and X passing 0 every time.

Now, when you measure this particle and it happens to be at zero, sometimes it moves towards X afterwards and sometimes it moves towards -X.

For the scientists however, all they can measure is that it’s at 0 and half the time it randomly goes one way or the other with 50/50 probability.

To explain this, scientists imagine the particle has more than 0, but it has a secret momentum hidden into it telling it to deflect positively or negatively.

Imagine a circle instead of a line. Now instead of crossing zero, you rotate around 0 and hit a Y and -Y axis with X and -X unchanged.

That y axis that contains the hidden momentum of the particle is called “imaginary” because scientists love loaded terms that are unhelpful to understanding lol.

You can just not reply. It’s weird you keep up typing replies to me and then get mad when I respond.

Do you need the last word that badly?

Your points are correct but I think you misunderstand what my analogy was intended to do. None of this makes it a bad analogy.

I don’t disagree with you that reading opens the doors to so many other things than chess does.

I also never intended to imply chess is a transferable skill. Chess skill, for matters of this discussion, could be entirely useless outside of the specific context of a chess game.

The reason i made the analogy betwen learning to read and reading for fun is because I’m trying to illustrate the difference of 500 ELO chess and 2500 ELO chess.

If you play 500 ELO chess you DO NOT KNOW what 2500 ELO chess is, you could not explain the reasons behind a single move which is made in strategy, you can barely identify how to move your horse.

…it’s not an actual apology, it’s a rhetorical device. Was that not clear?

If we’re giving each other mutual advice on phrasing, I’d remove this particular rhetorical device from your repertoire. Strawmanning me as being upset about some irrelevant thing and insincere apologizing for it is unproductive because now I either have to address the strawman or I could use my own rhetorical device by taking your apology literally and use it against you.

The setup I was given wasn’t really a productive thing to build on, and that was just as clear as the phoniness in your apology.

I don’t really understand why you feel the need to second guess my own assessment of my own mind.

I understand why you think I’m doing that, and it’s probably related to the part lower down you admit you aren’t really caring about what I say to you and what point I’m actually intending to make.

To once again clarify. At no point have I second guessed your own assessment of your own mind.

I simply pointed out that your assessment of the mind you **do not possess?? (one in which you have fully studied the thing) can’t honestly be guessed at and this is an existing problem for everyone.

I’m not interested in an explanation either, just to be clear.

Then what are we doing here man? I’m responding for the sole purpose of explaining this point to you.

I think you need to consider why you’re still responding here because all I have for you are more explanations until you understand this basic concept.

Each time you keep drawing comparisons that paint me as naïve and childlike. It’s perhaps not intentional but the end result is tremendously insulting, hence why I’m not interested in further talk on the subject.

Since you mention you love logic puzzles how about that I instead of a comparison:

You are a prisoner in a room with 2 doors and 2 guards. One of the doors will guide you to freedom and behind the other is a hangman–you don’t know which is which, but the guards do know.

One of the guards always tells the truth and the other always lies. You don’t know which one is the truth-teller or the liar either. However both guards know each other.

You have to choose and open one of these doors, but you can only ask a single question to one of the guards.

You ask both guards “are you interested in further talk on the subject?”

The first guard stays silent. The second guard says “Each time you keep drawing comparisons that paint me as naïve and childlike. It’s perhaps not intentional but the end result is tremendously insulting, hence why I’m not interested in further talk on the subject.” And then continues ranting for 4 more long paragraphs.

Which guard is lying and which one is telling the truth?

With regards to learning new things, the world of human experience is vast. I am not shutting the door on chess out of petulance. I do so knowing the journey I would need to take is incompatible with my own preferences for discovery and growth. To my mind it is a distilled competitive logic puzzle. I don’t like logic puzzles of any complexity, and I particularly don’t like pared down ones with no set dressing or storytelling.

Yep, no need to justify anything. I know i sound like a broken record here haha but you keep bringing up justifications for why you don’t prioritize this hobby when what your priorities are was never really in question.

My point is still strictly about difference between learning X and doing X, and how the learner can’t access the mind of the doer before they’ve finished learning.

I am actually quite happy to engage in puzzle solving - it’s one of the things I do for a living. However there the puzzles are more cooperative and with many, many more facets to them. They can be solved in a huge number of ways and with a variety of different skills.

Thats got my interest piqued. In an abstract way or you literally solve recreational style puzzles for a living?

There’s this show Ludwig about a puzzle solver who gets pulled into a murder investigation.

I’m explaining this because it seems you need it spelled out rather explicitly.

I don’t need anything spelled out. I understand on my end, I’m trying to explain a basic concept to you (difference between thing and learning about thing) and it seems like the problem of why I’m not getting through isn’t that you’re aren’t capable of understanding but you’re not willing to concede I might have a point because we’re now in an adversarial sort of context and you’re just I think in “winning” mode from here on out and won’t give me an inch.

Particularly as you seem to have rather strange ideas about who you’re talking to. I’m nearly 40 and your comment about not recognising past versions of myself could not possibly be further from the truth. The various iterations of myself have been built atop the old ones. The eleven year old boy is still in there, as is the teenager, twenty-something, and the several versions of me from my 30s.

For example this. You obviously understand the difference between teenage your tastes and your tastes now, you just don’t want to give it to me.

Which well, that’s sort of how we’re encouraged to act online anyway.

I don’t necessarily know everything I like, but I’ve tried a great many things and have a firm understanding of what kinds of activities I dislike. I can also extrapolate fairly well, and it’s not like chess is an obscure interest such as shin-kicking. The journey and destination both look rather dull to me, whereas many others do not. I cannot do everything in one lifetime and must choose. Chess has had its chance with me. It blew it. The same is true for gambling, as it happens. I have tried it in various forms and found it universally dull. I also don’t enjoy ales, gloomy literature, tennis, or horror movies. There’s much about those things I don’t know and I intend to keep it that way in order to explore other potential interests. Things that I hopefully won’t be bored by, or at least I enjoy some element of the journey.

Yeah I know, chess doesn’t fit into your goals and you don’t have an interest in the game at the current level you’re playing at.