Thank FUCK you edited that horrible FUCKING word, so that my innocent eyes aren’t FUCKING desecrated.
Tits.
I suggest autoreplacing it with a more technical term.
fucksexSEX
That’s a sexing dolphin.
FUCK
Fuck the fucking fuckers.
Fun fact: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny.
Depending on what species a foetus looks like, you can make a guess for how long it has been present inside a womb.
Source: Haeckel’s Embryos.
You are never going to convince me the biggest vilain in the whole world is fucking religion. I hate religious people with all my heart
isn’t fucking religion
Or
You are never going to convince me; the biggest villain in the world is fucking religion.
Lot of faith in that analysis, I guess.
I do honestly think land ownership is the greatest evil. Because if houses aren’t a commodity then a lot of problems (homelessness, hoarding, environmental damage, corporate bullshit, etc) start to be a lot harder to justify.
I think it’s in the top 5:
-
Capitalism
-
Patriarchy
-
Racism (I consider this tied with patriarchy tbh)
-
Religion
-
People who take two seats on public transit with no justification
Religion is a rationale for other evils. It is in itself not evil.
Patriarchy and racism (and many religions do that too) are all the same thing - chauvinism, the belief in the superiority of the own group. This also includes nationalism, homophobia, xenophobia and any other “I hate you because you are different”-isms
So I’d go with:
- Chauvinism
- Capitalism (greed)
- People who blast music on speaker in public transit
I think people blasting music on hiking trails is slightly above public transit.
Wildly better list. One of the failings of liberal/left minded people in recent decades has been to become list makers. “We will stand up for the rights of women [pause for applause], blacks [pause for applause], the elderly [pause for applause], etc…” sounds real nice until someone listening says “what about me?” It’s a losing political strategy in a world where the words “All Americans” and “everyone” exist. At the absolute least, tag those words on the end.
To be clear since this keeps coming up from people who like to put words in other people’s mouths then tell them those words are wrong, I am not saying laws can’t protect/benefit marginalized groups. This is about communication.
-
Even though you hate religious people with all your heart?
90% of scientists agree
Even if that were true these kinds of people are notorious for discounting the vast majority consensus because some lunatic said otherwise. It’s almost like science has no bearing to them unless it validates their preconceived ideas.
Exactly the problem and they all cite a paper written by a pro life conservative who works at the Hamilton foundation which is a conservative ‘think tank’.
The paper itself is abysmally stupid. He emailed about 60 000 people with 5 or so confoundingly, unnecessarily complex question (manipulated) and about 30 000 or so responded and then he interpreted the answers and made the conclusion that like 90% of respondents agree that life begins at conception.
Morons say 90% of scientists agree, which is not even what the paper claims at all which itself is not good.
He could have just asked ‘does human life begin at conception’? Also he complained (author) in a podcast about the paper about how so many faculty at the college he was st during the paper writing urged him to discontinue the project as for various reasons and then spins that to basically say pro women’s rights advocates are in a conspiracy against life and were all democratic demons in a death cult (more or less)
Somebody do better please. Sources are Wikimedia.
Here you go OP. It’s actually ok to swear on the internet.
Here is a not weirdly censored and un-censored version:
I mean… could I have gone and found the original, maybe. Did it cross my mind, no I jumped straight to do it on my phone and make it look as natural as possible, but of course this was the harder option. 🤦♂️
I like to go the extra mile. I uncensor shit emphatically.
A censored “shit” in a post about Star Trek? “SHIT” in big Star Trek font.
“Cunt” in a post about the UK? Enjoy your “CUNT” dressed in a union jack.
The censored word is “cock”? Here’s “COCK” in flesh tones with bulging purple veins on it.
Fucking lean into it.
“Harder”. I mean, sure. It’s all so low effort anyway. Why not call that harder.
I also like to reinvent wheels, it’s basically a hobby at this point
I don’t get at all this trend of badly censored words.
Yes, **** the fuck.
They try to be a rebel, but still wanna please facists algorithms. American puritanism BS. Fuck that.
One theory is that it’s done intentionally to farm engagement from people pointing it out. Also I think most mainstream platforms heavily push down in the algorithm content that isn’t sanitised. This is to make the platform more appealing to advertisers because the platform’s userbase is the product.
As for why the words are partly censored instead of completely censored I’m not sure. I’d guess it’s to game the algorithm while also making the word completely obvious.
Either way, if this is the behaviour that you engage in on a platform, that platform is terrible and you are an attention obsessed idiot.
It’s to get by censorship algorithms on certain sites. The picture is copied as-is, so it stays even when not needed.
the only correct answer
The creators of Lemmy (who also run the Lemmy.ml instance) are huge fans of censorship and propaganda so they use automated swear word filtering to train their users into uncritically accepting censorship.
I hate it. I downvote every censored post.
mUh EnGaGeMeNt StAtS
MY EYES! NOOOOO! MY INNOCENCE!!!
Unless you’re a part of .ml, apparently. They auto-censor that stuff for some reason.
i can promise you fuck isn’t censored on .ml
They got more problems than censoring bad words tho…
hold up…the CCCP supporting fascist loving asscrack of the federation censors posts?!
to hear a ml user, they make it seem like they’re having a fucking blast over there… sounds like a fucking gulag.
I’m sure if you’re a bootlicking, barely literate troglodyte it is amazing to be on ml
it is pretty great not having to deal with fash on the regular.
uncanny tho how every time i go into the wider lemmy there’s someone complaining about troglodytes/untermensch/degenerates
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
90% of scientists agree you pull random percentages out of your ass.
Even if it was a human, Chris would be wrong with his lie about “90% of scientists.” Not sure why people think a lie will help their argument in cases like this.
Eh… A Human fetus is human, but it is not “a human”. Your toenail clippings are human.
Plus, the humanity or personhood of a fetus doesn’t really matter for the pro-choice position. Simply put, there is no (other) legal situation that can compell you to give up your bodily autonomy.
Example. I can shoot someone in the street in cold blood, and they could die without a blood transfusion. The courts cannot compell me to do something as harmless as donating blood to save that person’s life. A fetus, despite arguably being a person, does not have a right to your blood, your breath, your nutrients, or a space inside your body. Full stop.
Wow. I have never heard this argument articulated in this way. Thanks!
I had a…call? survey? at some point from an entity that probably gave rise to this data. It was basically a push-poll that used question order and positive reinforcement to try to get people to agree that abortion is murder.
Mostly, it tried to conflate “human” with “a human,” starting out with things like “are cells isolated from humans still human?” “Can cultured cells be called ‘viable?’” “So would you agree that tissue cultured from a human donor is viable, human tissue?”
Reminds me of this… https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/yes-prime-minister-questionnaire-design-matters
They are asking the questions in a way that gets the answers they want just like in yes prime minister.
That sounds like a hell of a survey.
Mine are always like “on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 being very poor and 10 being outstanding, how would you rate the service you have received today?”
Am scientist (not in life sciences). If someone showed me this image, I’d have absolutely no idea what I’m looking at. So that’s one for the 10%, I guess.
They don’t care about facts data or science. They use it to argue in bad faith, not to have a serious convo.
If you call that out they’ll just ignore you and try and get you with some other made up gotcha fact.
Exactly. It’s something like a gish gallop - you can’t really rebut that and explain why it’s a comment made in bad faith, but to casual readers it’s a valid retort.
Also, even if 90% of scientists did say that… what percentage of those scientists are not biologists?
Do we need to know a geologist’s or physicist’s opinion about “some sort of weird meat-science”?
Like the old “Yeah, sorry, I am a Doctor, but I’m a Doctor of Jazz, not medicine”
Because they aren’t arguing to persuade the other party but to persuade the readers/listeners that won’t bother to research if its actually true.
Because they are stupid enough that they believe appeal to authority has any meaning.
Fucking.
Fucking?
XXX style.
Pfft, we have a hard time proving people under 1 billion net worth are human live nowadays.
I do love the “blank slate mammal” look we all seem to share at this stage.
A just a few less cells and it compares to birds, reptiles and fish.
We all start off as weird worm-like gilled things, huh
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
At what stage are these, uh, stages?
Comparative Anatomy and Embryology - Advanced | CK-12 Foundation https://share.google/7DK4c0mlikYsbvPVy
This website is actually pretty helpful for teaching.
Damn, that ended up being a bit of a rabbit hole.
The source for this image was Wikimedia Commons which describes them as “Romanes’ 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings.”
I hadn’t heard of these fraudulent drawings that were seemingly so notorious that describing them as fraudulent needed no further elaboration, so I went on Ernst Haeckel’s Wikipedia page which has a longish subsection about these specific drawings. Apparently some… shall we say artistic license, was taken to make the different embryos look more similar to one another, and by modern standards they’re useful mostly for getting the idea across but are not completely true to life.
Wikipedia even has an article specifically about embryo drawings. The short of this story seems to be that there was some controversy back in Haeckel’s day mostly by people who rejected Darwinism. In the 90s some scientists noticed that these drawings didn’t match what they see in the lab and wrote a paper about it. Their paper was hijacked by people who reject Darwinism (i.e. creationist nutsos) and so there was more controversy than the matter probably really deserved.
Finally, I found this article on the website of the National Center for Science Education that defends Haeckel’s drawings, comparing them to modern photographs with any egg yolk removed (as the embryos were originally depicted without the yolk, something Haeckel was up front about) to show that they weren’t that inaccurate:
Very interesting, indeed. Thank you for sharing your journey.
Behold: Potential Mammal!
“Tube that’s lumpy on one side and tapers off on the other”
Yeh it’s peak, really goes downhill from there.
Amazing how we (or any organism complex enough to have organs) are just a pair of cells that underwent a sequence of protein-controlled division, folding and diversification. And excretion and consumption that formed and maintains non-cellular parts like fluids and bones. Plus the microbiome but arguably that’s not you, much like mites.
No, it’s a dolphin embryo
Were these scientists dentists ?
I doubt even 10% of the scientists can tell a human embryo apart from a dolphin.
I really expect nobody from the physics, math, social sciences, history, geology, or almost every other department to do it.
True. I was just making a “9 out of 10 dentists” joke
Reminds of https://youtube.com/shorts/rQqMcWuUDeg
