@ablata_at_alba@modumdoll@AP_Farrell Though tbh I am a metaphysics skeptic broadly. for the Fundamental Ontology of Dasein or Whatever it's unclear (to me) what it would even mean to be true/false
@ablata_at_alba@modumdoll@AP_Farrell This was not my experience at all. Nietzche is less precise but so much more readable. Heidegger is basically the opposite on a sentence by sentence level it's often incomprehensible
Why would anyone want to spend 1.6 billion dollars subsidizing Big Tech companies when that money could go to public education, health care or tax relief for our constituents? This issue is uniting Democrats, Republicans and Independents and I am proud to be your advocate!
@number_pizza111 I also do deeply believe that society depends on people doing things that are not personally rational in some sense. Eg there are lots of times when you could just get away with theft but you don't because it's not done
@Jcstearnswriter@QuetzalThoughts Yeah like men probably careless than women about body count but men do substantially care about both like sexual and relationship history
@panickssery@Benthamsbulldog I bet you could find examples where it makes sense but the shape of the argument feels very anti libertarian
"We need to ban X bc if it's legal they'll ban Y. Like it might be true but banning X is first order infringement on our freedoms
@panickssery@Benthamsbulldog Not sure this is wrong but it does seem kind of sus, in general supporting/opposing policy because of second order effects is not right, and "we need to ban this not even because of hypothetical harms from it but because of how it will change political incentives" is weird