• 3 Posts
  • 994 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 12th, 2025

help-circle


  • So instead of selling the food in thin containers that eventually become planters or paint buckets, why not let people bring their own Tupperware or plates from home?

    Food safety reasons. The restaurant then has to clean any random container people bring in, because it represents a contamination risk to the kitchen.


  • The key difference between all previous civilizational collapses and the one we potentially face is that most people in the past were farmers. Even in the grandest empires like Rome, less than 10% of the population actually lived in cities. Most people lived in the countryside working the land. The city of Rome lost something like 95% of its population. But those people didn’t just crawl in a hole and die. They abandoned the city and joined the vast majority of the population that was living in the countryside. Many in the countryside actually saw their quality of life improve substantially. Many who had been slaves found the old legal system enforcing their slavery no longer existed. Rome collapsing just meant the end of the grand cities; political and economic systems could fragment, and people would just live more locally.

    But today? Less than 5% of the population actually works on a farm. The vast majority of the population lives in cities. If the political and economic system collapses, the countryside can’t just absorb all those extra people. Hell, the farms can’t even operate without the equipment, fuels, and chemicals produced by the larger economic system.

    Historically, when civilizations collapsed, the common folk just left the cities, abandoned the corrupt elites to their madness, and returned to small villages and rural life. But now there is simply nowhere for people to retreat to.






  • The traditional penalty for treason is death by hanging, at best. This is treason against the most fundamental values of what our nation is supposed to stand for. If you do this kind of thing, you have committed an unforgivable offense against everything this nation is supposed to stand for. If you’re a police officer that flagrantly violates someone’s rights, you should hang for it. If you’re a police officer that plants evidence on someone, you should hang for it. If you’re a police officer that shoots an innocent person, you should hang for it.

    I have zero problem with holding police officers to a much higher standard that regular citizens. They want to go around calling themselves “officer?” Fine. I have no problem holding them to a brutal system of military justice. Make them earn their titles for a change.









  • From Meriam-Webster’s entry on the word

    Did the definition of n----r change?

    There is a widespread belief that the original meaning of n----r, as defined in dictionaries, was “an ignorant person,” and a related belief that current dictionary definitions describing its use as a hateful, racist epithet are a recent change. We do not know the source of those beliefs, but they are not accurate. The word was first included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary in 1864, at which time it was defined as a synonym of Negro, with a note indicating that it was used “in derision or depreciation.” There has never been a definition like “an ignorant person” for this word in any subsequent dictionary published by this company. Nor do we know of such a definition in any earlier dictionary.

    There’s been an attempt among white racists over the years to try and redeem the hard-r N-word. They’ll say that it originally meant just an ignorant or foolish person in general, not only black people specifically. But this is a historical fiction. It’s always been used as a slur against black people. It was originally a complete synonym for “negro.” If you asked Yarvin, and he didn’t just admit outright to being a flaming racist, he would likely justify it by making a claim like this. He would claim that he’s saying these billionaires are just corrupt and foolish. He would say that it’s OK to use the word, as he’s not referring to black people, just ignorant and lazy people in general. He would say he’s using the non-racist definition of the n-word. But again, this is a historical fiction.

    Sometimes racists will cite words like “niggardly”, meaning cheap or stingy, as an example of how the n-word could be used in ways not applying just to black people. Niggardly is a word that sounds like the n-word but actually does have a non-racist history. They’ll try to link niggardly to the hard-r n-word. But what they ignore is that the word niggardly has a completely different etymological root. Niggardly shares roots with words like niggling, tracing back to the 13th century nig, meaning simply a stingy person. The n-word however, as Meriam-Webster notes, derives directly from the Spanish negro.. Racists will connect the n-word to words like niggardly, niggling, etc., citing their real history as non-racist words, and say that the n-word can also be used non-offensively because of this. But there is no common etymological root between the hard-r n-word and similar sounding words that do actually have a non-racist history.

    Of course, it’s all ultimately a moot point. In polite society today, most people understandably avoid using any word that remotely sounds like the n-word. See controversies around the word niggardly. And really, there’s little reason to use words like niggardly, even if one could argue that they’re technically not racist. They just sound way too similar, and there’s plenty of other perfectly valid words to use in their place. And ultimately, someone could just as easily be hurt or offended by words that sound similar to the n-word even if they’re technically not directly related. The words are best avoided, as they just end up hurting people for no good reason, even if some etymologist might argue they’re not directly related.