🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@icedquinn

LOL your wasting your time on these people.. my 24 hour mute just expired and after seeing the load of complete trash and that they havent shut up for 24 hours (apparently even trying to talk to me when i clearly muted them) they just want attention. They are going right back on mute...

You are wasting your time even talking to them, you are a fair bit brighter you could spend that time on better pursuits, actually learning something rather than just getting dumber.

They arent worth your time, let them do their circle jerk, clearly they dont listen to or need anyone else to have their conversations anyway.

@meowski @crunklord420 @fluffy @SystemSock

@pthenq1

Why in the world are you referencing the small number of exceptional cases that abolished slavery early and ignoring the magnitude of hundreds of countries that abolished slavery after the USA?

Your doing what I keep giving you a hard time about, you are trying to sell a narrative that is contrary to the clear evidence because you cant let go of your narrative and look at the history objectively.

> The metal plow, invented by a guy called John Deere in 1837 (or Andrus).

Perfect example right here of you trying to manipulate the narrative. lets put this in perspective as you are using this technology as an example why american slavery is different..

1) incorrect, the first metal plough was invented in anctient egypt thousands of years ago.. you really think it was 1800s when someone first thought of putting metal on the tip of a plough. Its only that in most soil metal ploughs served no advantage, it is only needed in very rocky soil.

https://www.ploughmen.co.uk/about-us/history-of-the-plough

2) john deer meerly popularized the "self-polishing steel plough", the idea of metal ploughs is thousands of years old

3) But lets pretend for a second this is a new invention (which it was not, so what i say here is more of a 'lets pretent' thing).... your talking about an invention that was only created 26 years before the last slave existed in the USA.. keep in mind the date it was invented is not the date it went in wide use. It took several more years for it to be adopted.. so it existed for 20 years right at the end of slavery... ok hows that an argument, we literally abolished slavery shortly after it got invented, if anything proving the opposite of your point, that once the technology advanced and slaves werent needed we abolished it.

> I am not sure why we are talking about slavery. I think you introduced the subject. No sure why.

I brought up slavery as a counterpoint to your argument where you said "No because I say so. Or democrats say so. Because he is. All the planet say so." You argued that apparently if the whole planet things something is ok, or evil then it must be true.. I used slavery as a counterpoint to show that is hardly the case.

At that point you spent several messages trying to argue how somehow the whole worlds slavery is perfectly justifiable and only the USA is guilty or something.. you'd be much better served to have just admited slavery was wrong and that the world all agreeing doesnt mean squat when it comes to morality, however that would have to mean you'd concede you were wrong about something, but your confirmation biases would never allow that.

@biomedmax

@noelle Happy woman's day, thanks for being awesome!

@0x0f Oh and happy woman's day!

@SystemSock

You are implying causality in the wrong direction (post hoc ergo propter hoc). As should be clear from this thread conservatives by their nature think, far more often, science is some big conspiracy and have little trust for it. Naturally these people are far less likely to want to be part of an institution (science/academia) that they hold in discontent. So naturally you will see far less conservatives even applying for academia, let alone have credentials or accomplished anything to make them desirable by those hiring.

It isnt some conspiracy to oust conservative scientists (in fact if you are truly impartial and a scientist then it shouldn't even be possible to tell who is conservative, if your so bias it shows you are probably a shitty scientist in either direction).

I've seen enough resumes from academics to know that someone hiring people the vast majority of the time havent the faintest clue what their political leaning is in the first place.

@crunklord420 @meowski @icedquinn @fluffy

@pthenq1

In many ways your a lot like trump... repeating conspiracy theories, lying and believing your own lies to sell a extremist ideology where one side is infallible and the other does all the wrong. You like msot democrats are perfect mirror images of Trump, sadly.

@biomedmax

@pthenq1

If you werent selling the obviously lies biden and democrats sold for 4 years I might agree with your impartiality.. I know you think it of yourself.. but its clear from your pattern and statements it is far from the truth.

@biomedmax

@casualwp Google is probably a pretty awesome oppertunity in taiwan.

@pthenq1

> yep! you are right regarding the $2000 pay. He said "$2000 total", and what he meant was to add $1400 to the $600 last check.

Funny huh, Trump demands 2000$, gets rejected and they give 600$ then biden adds the 600$ passed under Trump to his own 2000$ figure to make it sound like biden gave out the the 2K.... but yea no one is bias against trump, no way.

> I did not contradict myself with slavery. It is not fair judging a time with the morals of other times.

Fine, well no one has been alive when slavery was on going in the USA either. Slavery has been illegal in the USA for three to four generations now. In fact the last time anyone was alive who had even been a slave is getting close to 100 years now, and they were 84 years old when they died.

But of course your going to use some obscure logic where slavery that happened over 150 years ago is somehow valid but slavery from 200 years ago somehow isnt... we call that cherry picking and its absolutely absurd in the extreme.

> Saying "oh! Greeks were evils because they had slaves" is not fair. They did not have a choice because of the technological gap between our time and their time.

Prime example of manipulative language and exageration right here... Why are you brining up the oldest form of slavery as if it is valid to the conversation, from a government and civilization that has fallen and doesnt exist?

Why dont we look at some dates huh and put it relative to the USA and youll see just how silly your argument sounds.

So as we covered 1863 the was the last time slavery was legal in the USA and 1865 the last time anyone acted as a slave. So how many countries around the world officially made slavery legal **AFTER** the use... the answer is, a hell of a lot, 100s.. In fact USA abolished slavery **sooner** than most countries.

* Brazil didnt abolish it till 1888
* Italy abolished it in 1981
* Germany we know had it well into the 1920's throughout world war 2
* Russia 1861 (about the same time as USA)
* Poland 1864 (same as USA)
* Netherlands 1863 (same as USA)

Seeing a pattern here? Most countries in europe and even around the world, save a few, abolished slavery at the same time or later than the USA.. hell even Africa had slaves longer than the USA.

> Same us and our chemical cars. In 600 years someone could say "Oh! They were evil because they were using combustion cars and not antimatter cars! Evil!!"... It will not be fair :-)

You sound so ridiculous... not only was america not particularly exceptional in when it abolished slavery (and abolished it earlier than many countries, later than some others).. but you are talking about a time when there was no engine, no electricity, the technology in 1863 was virtually non existent. Farming a plantation was virtually the same process in early 1800's as it was in the hundred years priors.

Your grasping for straws and its obvious.

> Roman had no choice. Same greeks. Starting 1700s and especially the 1800s there were alternatives (no only machines, but institutions: corporations, employees. etc).

Be specific, what did people have in 1800 that gave them an alternative to slavery, name the specific technology, that people in greece didnt have. What is this magical technology that suddenly made slaves obsolete. Not that it matters considering that, again, the USA abolished slavery around the same time as most countries, in fact, earlier than most, but whatever apparently we have to compare it to anctient greece for some reason that makes no sense (oh yea because its the most absurd example!)

> Trump clearly incited his base at the rally stage on Jan 6. I listened to his talk several times. It is a fact that he triggered the insurrection. And here is the data:

I've seen the speech and I saw the interview with the people there.. but again the actual facts caught on tape disprove you (Which your just ignoring and talking like it didnt happen)... If it was trumps speech then why is it when they first arrived at the capitol they obeyed the rules and stayed behind the barricades for some time? Why was it only after an more than an hour, and only once cops started pulling people out of a crowd and started beating them that the crowd sur4ged past the barricades. They were just lightweight metal barricades, if the crowd was truely enraged from a speech 2 hours earlier they would have marched right through the barricades once they arrived.

Your fabricating the reality you want to beleive because its what your told and completely ignoring obvious facts that prove you wrong.

Also lets not forget the moment violence did begin trump was on TV within minutes calling for them to not be violent, so he was rather explicit.

> Check the green dots. 🙂 they have the of a true fact. There is no argument regarding the people on the rally stage were the same people of the Capitol insurrection.

You realize posting a liberal leaning discredit news organization is a very weak argument when **there is literal video of what incited the incident and can see, caught on tape, the crowd responding to the police beatings, not trump**... Why would I need to listen to nytimes spin on a story when I can literally see it happen on video and see what happened the moments before the barricades are breached?

> his actions were different from all the other presidents because Congress was never stormed before after a president's words!
>
> There are not tracking of riots created by any politician at least in the last 50 years. If you have a record of something like that, please share the link.

How are **his** actions different because of what **other people** people did.. **he** did not storm the capital so saying **his** actions are different because some group of people became riotous is absolute nonsense.. What you mean to say is that his followers acted differently to trump saying the same things hundreds of politicians and activists (including MLK) had said before him... and that would be true... so? that doesnt mean trump did something different, it means his followers did.

@biomedmax

@pthenq1

Of course you do, your one of the group, or at least a supporter of the group.. meaning you yourself contribute to that divisiveness and to be divisive pretty much means one of your defining qualities has to be blaming everything on the other guy and accepting absolutely no responsibility.

@biomedmax

@pthenq1

> He was racist. He disrespected women. And he treated anyone that was not his follower as basically an enemy.

I mean thats not wrong, he was racist, and he was pretty shitty about what he said about women.

Then again Biden literally started his entire career to champion the cause of promoting segregation and doing everything in his power to block desegregation efforts. It was such an important issue for him it literally was the reason he became a senator and fought for it for years.... so while trump certainly had some racist tendencies I wont condone he didnt really hold a candle to Biden's racism.

> He said that if he would be elected, we would return to "the good all times" (aka the times before MLK).

More of that good old exaggeration and lying the dems are so great at... Yes MAGA was his motto, he never once likened it to "the days before MLK", thats your own fabrication. At worst the guy (like almost every old dude in history, regardless of their disposition towards other races) saw the past as a better time. While you are right to say he is wrong about that it looks quite ridiculous when you start implying he intended that to mean anything racial or that he meant by that that racial equality needs to be abolished...

The reason all this makes your arguments look so weak is because its such obvious and extreme exaggerations of what was actually said it makes it look like you have no argument at all unless you lie and exaggerate.. Thing is, if you didn't lie and exaggerate and called him out for what he actually explicitly said I'd probably agree with you, but instead because you take the dishonest route and go out of your way to manipulate what was said into something worse than what was said it makes me, a former-democrat, want to have nothing to do with democrats and dont want o be associated with people who lie all the time to get their way even if i do hate the GOP almost as much.

> And he even gave his followers a trick when he stripped Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in most of the U.S... so trumpist could go hunting!
>
> He was OK with an entire species going extinct so he could win an election! Come on! That is devil-ish! :D

No doubt this was the wrong move by him and I certainly dont support his choice, but again your interpretation of his motives aren't accurate. He is a conspiracy theorist and an idiot. When he does things like that it isnt because he doesnt care if the species dies, its that he thinks nature (through the will of god or whatever other way he explains it to himself) is more resilient than people think, scientists are idiots, and that the wolfs would be just fine without explicit protection. Obviously he is wrong, but this isnt out of malice its stupidity and there is no need to frame it as something it isnt.

To be clear his choices and policy in terms of the environment overall is horrific, I am not arguing he is a good president, only that being an idiot is not the same as being evil and you cant twist everytime he is an idiot into it being evil no matter how much you want to... he is evil too, but in far less damning ways than this and in no worse ways than biden.

> Still, I do not agree with democrats being divisive.

Of course you don't, you are literally acting like one of them and are literally doing it right now in this thread... I would not expect you to admit you, and the democrats are divisive. In fact taking no blame for yourself and blaming everything on the other side is virtually the defining quality of being divisive. So you are following the formula to a tee. In fact if you had admitted that democrats held some blame for the divisiveness only then would you have provided some evidence that I was wrong by example, ironically enough,.

@biomedmax

@pthenq1

> Well. Biden started with $2000 and then he went down to $1400. Still, Trump gave more money indeed. It is what I said.

Incorrect, he pushed for 1400 from the start. News agencies reported this (incorrectly) as 2000$ in some cases by adding it to the existing 600$ stimulus that is already in the process of being distributed. At no point did biden propose 2K

See the following for an example of this where they refer to it as 2K but actually are honest enough to point out int he article they are just adding Bidens 1.4K to the already in play 0.6K:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/politics/stimulus-payments-2000-dollars-biden/index.html

> No. The whole planet did not deal with slavery. Let's not twist reality to justify Trump.
>
> To name just a few: The Spanish Empire abolished slavery in 1542. Just to name one of the actors...
>
> In the civilized north, the Afro-Americans were free in 1833 and even before.

You literally just contradicted yourself and proved me right "no the whole world wasnt involved in slavery, here are two countries to prove that, both of which were involved in slavery, proving they werent involved in slavery"...

> In the past, slavery was not even comparable with Confederation Slavery. Roman slaves could buy their freedom for example. In other cultures, citizens became slaves to pay debts. After the debt was paid off they were free.

sorry you dont get to use the whole "american slavery is the only slavery that counts as 'real' slavery... dude the mental gymnastics is overwhelming your doing right now.

For starters, no roman slaves could not simply buy their freedom, not exactly. They could if and **only if** the master gave them the option. By law anything a slave owned their master owned, and if a slave was allowed to keep money at all it was at the discretion of their master and it took the form of "tips" more than a pay.

All of this is explained clearly on wikipedia or any other source, for example some quotes from wikipedia on the roman practice:

"Manumission, or enfranchisement, is the act of freeing slaves **by their owner**."

"The motivations for manumission were complex and varied. Firstly, it may present itself as a sentimental and benevolent gesture. One typical scenario was the freeing in the master's will of a devoted servant after long years of service. A trusted bailiff might be manumitted as a gesture of gratitude. For those working as agricultural laborers or in workshops, there was little likelihood of being so noticed."

"Under Roman law, a slave had no personhood and was protected under law mainly as his or her master's property."

As wikipedia goes on to point out this is in fact no different than american slaves whereby an american slave owner had the option of freeing their own slaves if they wished. A quote from wikipedia on the same topic/page regarding american slaves:

"Slaves could sometimes arrange manumission by agreeing to "purchase themselves" by paying the master an agreed amount. Some masters demanded market rates; others set a lower amount in consideration of service."

> If we go too far in the past we face technological issues. Manpower was required because of no engines.

Ahh the good old excuse slavery was ok because we needed slaves to work the fields. Sorry that doesn't cut it, slavery int he USA was before even electricity was common place or gas powered vehicles. Technology was not particularly advanced at the time slavery was in use in the USA anymore than the previous few hundred years, and its a poor excuse either way.

> For example. Mississippi ended slavery in 2013. What about that?

Effectively a lie. in 1863 slavery was made illegal in **all** states without a single exception as a matter of law. Even if a state wanted to make slavery legal and passed a law to make it legal the law itself would not actually be a law as it would automatically be unenforcable as higher law existed that overrode it.

Moreover the last time any human being was treated as a slave in the USA, regardless of law was on December 18, 1865, after that date there wasnt a single slave every again anywhere in the USA.

Please stop pulling dates out of your ass, it completely discredits any argument you wish to make.

What you are referring to is something entierly different, in 1995 Mississippi official decided to include themselves in the states that *ratified** the 13th amendment, which was already active in mississippi for over 100 years at that point and there was never any need or pressure for them to ratify it and in no way effected any actual laws. It was a purely symbolic gesture and nothing else, and highly unusual, as there is no need for all states to ratify amendments for them to go into force. Not ratifying an amendment is not an indication that the state refuses to recognize the law either, thats not how it works.

The date 2013 comes from the fact that the U.S.Archivist was unaware of and not notified of the symbolic ratification that took place in 1995 until 2013 at which point it was added to official record.

Again please stop making stuff up for dramatic effect or to win an argument, it just discredits your whole argument.

> It is pretty much whataboutism to declare all the evilness of the world the same. It was not. It is impossible since the world is a big place.

Never once claimed all the evilness of the world was the same. I pointed out that slavery was a problem in virtually every part of the world, and it was, denying that is disrespectful and a disgrace to the histories of marginalized people who were the victims of that slave trade.

> I mean... Trump harangued his followers to attack the Capitol. I am sure no president did something like that before...

He didnt, another fantasy.. what he did was beleive in a rediculous conspiracy theory where he thought the vote wasnt counted fairly, and so did his followers.. what he did was, just like Kamala has done, just like Biden has done and just like countless other politicians have done, was to say things like "we need to fight for justice" ... or to encourage a march on the capital (something that is so common it is almost a tradition when it comes to political causes)... so yes, his actions were no different than countless politicians before him.

Where things got different is that his followers were pulled fromt he crowd by police, and beaten (caught on camera) while his followers were still contained behind barricades.. you can hear the crowd screaming in anger on the videos of the event as the cop beats a trump supporter who is already subdued and on the ground, even calling over another police officers to join in on the beating. The crowd screams back "we should beat you!" and other things as they become enraged. All this was just a few minutes before the crowd finally became riotous and broke through the barricades and actually began their riot on the capitol... but of course all the democrats love to leave that little detail out even though it has been showed on video and is quite clear... why? Because its exactly the shit that caused their own people to riot for 4 years straight, if they pointed that out it would look too damn hypocritical and destroy their whole narrative.

But hey, lets just keep making up whatever fake reality we want, im sure thats a way better way not to "divide" the nation... Right now we could all be rallying together against police brutality, which is really what happened that day on capitol hill, and something the democrats pretended to care about.. but no, they would rather divide than unite against evil... and you call the trumpeters the ones doing the dividing... yea ok...

@biomedmax

I can dig this ladies message.. she seems worth checking out. I particularly like her style of engaging science deniers by being empathetic to the factors that motivate their denial:

https://twitter.com/TheSpaceGal

@AusOcean considering how cheap and easy it would be to build a deep-ocean remote RV I wonder why you guys dont have more of them.. seems like its a funding limit for you and im wondering where the cost of that would be.. in my head should be dirt cheap to make one really

@realcaseyrollins because your body responds autonomously even if your dead.. much like touching a hot stove your hand will recoil before you even feel or recognize the sensation of heat. People who are killed instantaneously but traumatically expiernce what is called **cadaveric spasm**, and will, if holding a gun, shoot.

Long story short, if someone has the gun to the head of a hostage and you shoot that person in the head resulting in a quick death, they will still respond by shooting their victim.

To quote wikipedia:

> Cadaveric spasm.. is muscular stiffening that occurs at the moment of death and persists into the period of rigor mortis...
>
> The cause is unknown but is usually associated with violent deaths under extremely physical circumstances with intense emotion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaveric_spasm

@lupyuen Actually I already wrote a library that does exactly that (but not in haskell)... it is active and has some good contributors too.. maybe you'd want to join in :)