Liberals have excess valence Hitler particles, which makes them unstable and highly reactive

Freud was one weird motherfucker

6.8 billion dollars is how much it costs to keep one turret firing for two hours, or alternatively, how much it costs to pay for the EU’s entire electricity consumption for eighty-four hours

People genuinely without political awareness do not believe they have existential enemies. They think all it takes to change a Nazi’s mind is a sound and well-structured argument, for the sake of which they are willing to let them talk back and entertain their talking points, as if anyone ever becomes a Nazi on the basis of rational consideration. This wishful thinking may be exacerbated by a common liberal fallacy that balanced equals unbiased and unbiased equals true or trustworthy.

Right-wingers on the other hand do everything they can to try to rehabilitate and excuse even the worst figures amongst their ranks, because it broadens the acceptance their ideology can find. If someone points out Rommel’s colonial aspirations and murderous exploits to expand the reach of Hitler’s empire into Africa, they fall back on saying they’re not an expert and did not know about his crimes, even immediately after telling their “nuanced” stories about him.

Functioning under capitalism is the highest form of lying. You must put nice words in white print on your resume or else a bot will reject it. You must brazenly invent years of experience in interviews for an entry-level job or else they won’t hire you. You must wear a grinning mask when dealing with a customer under all circumstances or else the deal might fail. You must act like your dearest and most interesting things in the world are spreadsheets and sales pitches, or else you’ll be reprimanded and then fired. The whole thing is a hologram of paper-mache painted to look like marble, one facade after another, there is no place for humans, only for their images. Nothing in this economic system is about truth, or justice, or even basic respect. It’s all about appearances.

Also, equating the Democratic Party to communists has got to be the most insidious line of anticommunist propaganda yet

It is also very impressive that their increase in green energy generation this month now covers the average monthly increase in total generation for the first time, which means we have serious hope for China’s emissions to peak in the coming months

“What do you mean I can’t bring a cow into your house? It is obvious to me as a cow expert that your door is big enough. Now name ten breeds of cattle, and then we can talk”

And it will go up again, and down again. Stock markets are an awful predictor of a country’s actual economic state, they are more of a mystic ritual that is said to foretell the value of economies. In reality, you have to do a detailed, real-time calculation of all the capital and labour assets of a country to gauge its economic state and figure out what it could do with them; which, granted, is considered heresy under liberal rule

What would qualify as an unusual level of interest towards strong men? starts purging doujin collection

Ah yes, the Lotka-Volterra model of history

Counterpoint: There will be much more work to be done in socialism and communism than in capitalism, because our cultural standards will be much, much higher; a socialist world is one where everyone will have first-world problems. Just like living in the cramped and damp huts of the dark ages seems unthinkable today, it will be inconceivable to socialist society to live in an empty room painted eggshell. People tomorrow will not be content with derivative sequels and machine-made mince music, and they won’t wear pants that can’t survive the month. To support billions of people with luxury quality that has low environmental impact is a thing that can and will be made possible, but it requires much more work than supporting a deadbeat proletariat that is economically clinging on for dear life and teetering on the brink of ecological extinction.

The question is a bit misleading, since it is not about relative acceleration but relative velocity. The relative velocity of the 4-year-old man is key to determine his momentum, and hence the kinetic energy of his impact upon the bullet.

With that out of the way, we first note that adulthood starts at 18, which must be due to a significant time dilation in the reference frame of the man. We have the formula for the time dilation t’ = γt, with the Lorentzian gamma factor γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v²/c²), thus 1/γ² = 1 - v²/c², and we get v = sqrt(1 - 1/γ²)c for the velocity. If the man is four years old in one reference frame and 18 in another, then γ = 18/4 = 4.5, and after plugging in the value, it follows that v = 0.975c. Therefore, the man had an incredible speed of about 292500 m/s when he and the bullet mutually obliterated one another.

When I followed my passion and taught Calculus 2 as a student, I got paid so poorly that I was losing money after rent and health insurance. I didn’t care then, I still don’t care, and I would do it again if the university would actually let me do it after graduating, because the pay is literally so low it is illegal for outsiders to do under national labour law. When your bank balance no longer represent your entitlement to survival, you’d be mad wasting your best years working on it

So China is not a threat? Great to hear, can we start deescalating now?

Remember the time when Washington DC was invaded by men in high heels, wigs, bows, and colourful dresses? They are still living the trauma of 1812

'); DROP TABLE no_fly_list

It is right to see dialectics in science, but it appears after the fact as a consequence of observation and theory rather than as an epistemological requirement. Certain scientific theories, such as relativity, do not admit a dialectical interpretation due to a lack of actors to play out the dialectical process, or of contradictions between them.

This is correct, but it’s not like there is ever a contradiction between mathematical and dialectical methods. Natural scientists only prefer to work with mathematics because their subject is benign enough to admit mathematical descriptions yielding precise, quantitative results, while social scientists need dialectics because their mathematical models suffer from crippling vagueness and complexity and are quickly outdated. Where mathematics can describe a system to which dialectics happen to also apply, e.g. phase transitions, it naturally produces models that mirror the dialectic because they both describe the same thing.

You are in the midst of committing a category error. Dialectics is the model that describes changing historical, social, and philosophical systems and processes. Analogies from physics are frequently used to explain how dialectics work, but that doesn’t mean dialectics govern physics, only that dialectical thinking has historically been inspired by physical processes.

The logical role that dialectics fulfills in social science is fulfilled in natural science by mathematics. So rather than taking the dialectical method and filling it with natural objects and laws at random, you should study the mathematical relationships between measurable quantities and interpret the relationships expressed in the equations governing them. I know you might not want to hear this because mathematics is hard, but the only way to understand the inner workings of gravity is to sit your ass down with a book about general relativity and do the exercises.