LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Does this make me a leftist whenever I share food with people?

Triggered leftist!! I kick homeless people and enjoy watching them starve. Only a commie would share especially with the poor who deserve a terrible life. I am a proud free marketer and stupid people who give stuff to others with no intent of monetary gain are stupid and should suffer! My great great uncle donated money to poor people in some African country nobody cared about and died from not being able to pay for treatment. I don’t know or care what disease it was or that I could have easily payed for it. Anyway, sharing is not caring and communists like you are evil. They will destroy humanity by being greedy hypocrites!

[Valrifell]

Does this make me a leftist whenever I share food with people?

Triggered leftist!! I kick homeless people and enjoy watching them starve.

Throwback to younger me who literally wrote a businessman kicking the homeless back when I first joined the site about five years ago.

Looking back I was a really bad right-libertarian back then.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Throwback to younger me who literally wrote a businessman kicking the homeless back when I first joined the site about five years ago.

Looking back I was a really bad right-libertarian back then.

Are Were you a businessman who kicks homeless people? Am I reading this completely wrong?

[Valrifell]

Throwback to younger me who literally wrote a businessman kicking the homeless back when I first joined the site about five years ago.

Looking back I was a really bad right-libertarian back then.

Are you a businessman who kicks homeless people? Am I reading this completely wrong?

No, I was roleplaying a civil war within my nation and wrote one of the factions as being led by an ebul businessman who literally kicked a homeless man.

I think if you search my post history you should be able to find it. Plz no bulli, tho, I was 14.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

No, I was roleplaying a civil war within my nation and wrote one of the factions as being led by an ebul businessman who literally kicked a homeless man.

I think if you search my post history you should be able to find it. Plz no bulli, tho, I was 14.

Did you think that was ok?

[Kubra]

lol well not exactly
That's just a very obvious example of an irreconcilable conflict: me asking for money for no reason

Then I can just say "no." No need for violence.

well, both parties are certainly not satisfied with this arrangement

[Proctopeo]

As a very basic structure I'm pretty sure you can find the scientific method as the framework of any field-unique scientific method. It's relatively basic, and it's not like you can analyse data before you acquire it.

Scientists do not talk about a single scientific method.

[citation needed]

I agree with that sentiment but I don't think it's as widespread or prevalent as you're presenting.

You don't think that what is that widespread or prevalent? That positivism is dying? Factually, that is true.

Factually, there is a teapot orbiting the sun.

[Valrifell]

No, I was roleplaying a civil war within my nation and wrote one of the factions as being led by an ebul businessman who literally kicked a homeless man.

I think if you search my post history you should be able to find it. Plz no bulli, tho, I was 14.

Did you think that was ok?

Ok to write it or ok to do it?

Yes to the first (obviously; no now) and no to the latter.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Lol what a load of horseshit.

Science is using the scientific method, most academics don't do that, and you know it.

That is based on positivism, a dying philosophy of science. There is no such thing as the scientific method. Each field has its own scientific methods.

No, that's not what's happened at all, fields that want to have the public respectability of science masquerade as sciences. You cannot have a science where you cannot have the ability to replicate your results. That's why history and fields like it are not science.

[Hanafuridake]

That is based on positivism, a dying philosophy of science. There is no such thing as the scientific method. Each field has its own scientific methods.

No, that's not what's happened at all, fields that want to have the public respectability of science masquerade as sciences. You cannot have a science where you cannot have the ability to replicate your results. That's why history and fields like it are not science.

Are you telling me you've never replicated the Battle of Teutoburg Forest with one of those home chemistry kits?

Smh, get with the times old man.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

Are you telling me you've never replicated the Battle of Teutoburg Forest with one of those home chemistry kits?

Smh, get with the times old man.

Just simulate the Battle of Teutoburg Forest with Rome Total War.

The future is now old man.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, that's not what's happened at all, fields that want to have the public respectability of science masquerade as sciences. You cannot have a science where you cannot have the ability to replicate your results. That's why history and fields like it are not science.

Are you telling me you've never replicated the Battle of Teutoburg Forest with one of those home chemistry kits?

Smh, get with the times old man.

Where did the time go?

[Luminesa]

No, that's not what's happened at all, fields that want to have the public respectability of science masquerade as sciences. You cannot have a science where you cannot have the ability to replicate your results. That's why history and fields like it are not science.

Are you telling me you've never replicated the Battle of Teutoburg Forest with one of those home chemistry kits?

Smh, get with the times old man.

Need to use a home-chemistry kit to grow all dem trees.

[Hanafuridake]

Are you telling me you've never replicated the Battle of Teutoburg Forest with one of those home chemistry kits?

Smh, get with the times old man.

Where did the time go?

[Luminesa]

Where did the time go?

NO.

THIS EPISODE MADE ME PHYSICALLY SAD.

STOP.

CEASE.

PLZ.

[Kubra]

If we're talking "soft" science a la sociology and anthropology and what not, it's important simply to say that most of the subject matter cannot be studied in a lab setting. Nonetheless, we know it to be knowledge of some sort. In the absence of better methodologies for the fields, one has to take them and their results seriously.

[Yusseria]

NO.

THIS EPISODE MADE ME PHYSICALLY SAD.

STOP.

CEASE.

PLZ.

Eh, that dude was an asshole anyway. What type of person gets happy that billions of people died just because it gives him more time to read books?

[Conserative Morality]

No, that's not what's happened at all, fields that want to have the public respectability of science masquerade as sciences. You cannot have a science where you cannot have the ability to replicate your results. That's why history and fields like it are not science.

History isn't a science, but matters like sociology, economics, etc, very much are. It's the distinction between natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Then I can just say "no." No need for violence.

well, both parties are certainly not satisfied with this arrangement

Who said they had to be?

[Duvniask]

well, both parties are certainly not satisfied with this arrangement

Who said they had to be?

It is by then that violence might occur - you already went over this before.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Who said they had to be?

It is by then that violence might occur - you already went over this before.

Very few cases of dissatisfaction result in violence.

[Ostroeuropa]

Representative enough, Could be a lot better, but it does the job more often than not.

It's only representative in the sense that the competitors ritualistically invoke the name of the people. The entire industry is mass psychological manipulation. It sets false limits on the possible and extracts formulaic statements of consent on the misleading basis that the window of socioeconomic possibility offered by the candidates is all that there is.

It doesn't represent a natural consensus, it constantly works to create that consensus by systematically denigrating anything outside. As the game is inherently stacked in favour of the most powerful interest groups with the best propaganda machinery, the results cannot be meaningfully representative.

It bares more resemblance to the concept of "managing up the chain of command" than it does actual service of the people and their interests. The elites have been forced into offering us two superficially different choices for what they intended to do all along, with the only real impact of the transition meaning they can now successfully demonize any attempts to influence them outside of this choice, whether armed rebellion, protest, etc.

It has also meant the elites have abandoned any pretense of the nobles obligation and can blame the public for their own "Bad decisions" rather than accept systemic mismanagement and incompetence by the ruling class.

[Kubra]

well, both parties are certainly not satisfied with this arrangement

Who said they had to be?

we'll you're the one who said there's no conflict that cannot be reconciled. I assumed it involved compromise, else we may as well just call violence a form of reconciliation, which would be quite ridiculous.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, that's not what's happened at all, fields that want to have the public respectability of science masquerade as sciences. You cannot have a science where you cannot have the ability to replicate your results. That's why history and fields like it are not science.

History isn't a science, but matters like sociology, economics, etc, very much are. It's the distinction between natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities.

In some things they can replicate their results, but you can't really come up with a scientific explanation that covers all of society, and all human societies, because that isn't replicable.

[Valrifell]

History isn't a science, but matters like sociology, economics, etc, very much are. It's the distinction between natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities.

In some things they can replicate their results, but you can't really come up with a scientific explanation that covers all of society, and all human societies, because that isn't replicable.

Well, not until we can engineer tiny humans.