You usually wouldn’t use genitive, though, but dative: “Die Filmnacht meiner Freundin und mir” (the movie night [of] mine[gen.] gf and me[gen.]). Which a bit confusingly turns into straight nominative in English, “The movie night of my gf and I”, I’m usually very insistent on putting objective everywhere I can but “the movie night of whom” really doesn’t sound right. Don’t ask me why do I look like a linguist.

Alternatively, sufficiently nordic, “Meiner Freundin und mir unsere Filmnacht”, which’d be “mine gf and I our movie night”… by proxy via “Mien leevste un ik uns Filmnacht”, that is, Low Saxon, where the construction comes from. Trying to match the Standard German rendering up with English case-wise is breaking my brain. Low Saxon has the exact same case structure as English so I’m declaring it correct. Or is it “un mi” / “and me”? It shouldn’t. But I’ve spent way too much time thinking about it so now I’m unsure.

Faith is actually a mechanism to ensure change keeps happening. It suspends the “sealing off” of the mind that replaces sensory input with projected theory.

Motherfucker. What do you think religious doctrine is and faith in it does.

Buddhism uses presence for the same function abrahamic religions use faith.

Buddhism, if you drill down into the monastic core, is introspective psychology. It has much more in common at that level with what’s considered philosophy in the western tradition, in particular Stoicism. It arrived at that knowledge during an initially productive scientific phase, meaning theorising and experimenting, later on alas it fell away from that and various groups fell back into that exact sealing off you mentioned, not investigating any more but accepting the map of the territory they read in monastery school as the territory. Religious innovation generally follows that kind of repeating pattern over quite long time-spans.

It’s a source of noise to keep the conceptual structure from gaslighting the adherent into being unable to see what’s in front of them.

You could also, you know, just be sceptical. Heck, even be a capital-S Sceptic them and the Stoics disagreed on like exactly one point which from a certain POV is semantics.

…not to mention that that’s not how the mind works. It’s not how life works. If you want entropy then it’s going to come from the outside, everything about life itself is geared towards minimising entropy on the inside, at the expense of accelerating its progression on the outside. (Yes the purpose of life is to hasten the heat-death of the universe, different topic). What may seem like internal randomness to you is merely your degrees of freedom doing their thing, the capacity to react to the same external stimulus in different ways depending on your internal state. It’s a chaotic system (and overall you are) but it’s definitely not noise, not from the POV of the organism itself: It is not subject to it, but is employing it.

If, OTOH, all you wanted to say is “hey I found a way to stop walking into lamp posts and I describe it like…” then first off congratulations, keep up the good work, but also I don’t care about your half-arsed theory. Maybe if you didn’t connect it up with the concept of noise it would’ve at least ended up being internally consistent. Keep not having theories if you want to see actual freedom from that conceptual stuff. Maybe investigate why you felt the need to to explain the experience instead of taking it at face value.

if I ignored moral concerns, is there a world where keeping the majority ignorant could actually lead to more efficiency than letting knowledge of the state of things spread?

No, because systems and complexity and chaos theory: To be a good regulator of a system you need to be a model of that system and a small elite can’t model the lower ranks, no matter how much GPUs you give them to run ML¹ software on, as humans not to speak of societies are chaotic systems and there are no closed-form solutions to those.

Which is why hierarchical power is a completely bonkers idea that’ll never work out and the only way out is to develop horizontal structures of organisation. That is, become an anarchist, the only political theory mathematically proven (see above) to even have a chance of working out.

¹ Pun not intended but accepted.

Dictator didn’t mean back then what it means now: It was a time-limited emergency position, then oligarchy resumed. The Romans would call our current-day dictators tyrants and they tended to go the way of Caesar: Stabbed in the back (literally) by the senatorial power they usurped.

So they don’t produce surplus value that is siphoned off by capital?

All those contractors that went bankrupt because Trump doesn’t pay his bills, do you intend to say that to their face? That because they own a literal hammer, they can’t get fucked over?

Even fucking tankies, at least some of them, acknowledge this: In the GDR tradespeople, from baker to electrician, owned (as in actually owned) their business. Hiring a journeyman and having a trainee doesn’t bourgeois make.

It can get very nasty. Russians had to use water to extinguish the fire in one of those gas ports, it’s freezing there and freezing water, well, expands. Which means that any pipe that wasn’t burst by the explosion or bent by the fire is now bent by ice an the whole thing is leaking left and right. From what I understand practically a complete loss, they will have to build it from scratch.

That’s not a court order. It’s not even a treaty. It’s a summit paper summing up how the participants understand applicable international law. The summit was 2005. Israel already did shady shit back then but SA hadn’t yet brought a case before the ICJ, mostly because Israeli politicans hadn’t yet run their mouth regarding the seed of Amalek and stuff which enabled dragging Israel before court in the first place as the charge of genocide requires intent to destroy, not mere war crimes, those kinds of quotes are necessary to prove intent.

Learn to actually read and contextualise the stuff you’re quoting. I don’t disagree with the sentiment but boy are your posts full of holes. Hasbara would have you for breakfast.

Thanks, but I have read the order I don’t need a random secondary source to know what’s in there or not. Paragraph 80.

I mean even on the face of it: It’s Israel which is getting sued, not the rest of the world. Of course the ICJ is thus going to order Israel to do stuff, not the rest of the world, which isn’t in the dock.

Recht also simply means justice, literally “what is right”. And Einigkeit tends more towards concord or consensus than pure unity which can have overtones of uniformity, that’s a different word in German (Einheitlichkeit). Freiheit means what it means.

with the predictable outcome that many thousands of civilizations are going to starve or thirst to death or die from diseases.

UNWRA currently isn’t able to get aid in because the IDF blocks everything so right now is actually the about best time to put pressure on them to clean ship. Not to mention that there’s other agencies and organisations in the area doing generic humanitarian work, schools are about the last of Gazan’s worries right now.

This in contravention of the ICJ ruling that ordered to stop Genocide.

The ICJ said no such thing. The preliminary order requires Israel to make sure that aid is getting to Gazans.

Anzeige is raus.

Pide and Dürum tend to be equal size and generally also cost the same. Lahmacun tend to be bigger than Dürum in the first place and then you have extra meat on there, no wonder it costs more you’re putting a Döner in something that’s already a proper Pizza.

And, as said: It’s actually good meat. If you want bad meat go to McDonalds.

It’s actually not a percentage, you’re not allowed to used stabilising additives in the skewer which means that you can’t use a lot of ground meat or it’s going to fall apart.

But yes chicken skin is probably a good choice if you want structure for little money.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s already 10 Euros in some places. E.g. my town is notorious for not having cheap options, every single place has good meat, not only are none trying to get away with selling Hackfleischspieß as Döner, none of them use any ground meat at all (by law, a Döner skewer can’t contain stabilisers which severely limits the amount of ground meat you can include before it falls apart).

Eight Euros are pretty much standard here. Just under 10 if you want a Lahmacun Döner, and my town isn’t the poshest, by far – we just have good taste in Döner and one very old shop which always made their own skewers, own spice mix, own everything, which set the standard.

Try to get the same stuff in Westerland and I wouldn’t be surprise if it costs 15 Euros.

Find a single other dish that is both commonly eaten and over-regional. Even if Currywurst was properly over-regional, it’s a snack, not an actual meal.

If you ask canteens the most popular dish is Rinderrouladen but I assure you a lot more Döner are eaten every day.

I propose we add Döner to Article 22 of the Basic Law. That’s where it belongs.

woosh.

Yeah, and that’s intra-capitalist competition.

No it’s not. As before: Your class analysis is off. A capitalist is someone who can live off capital income alone. Farmers don’t.

They want more subsidies with fewer strings attached. Not no subsidies.

Noone wants no subsidies in Europe. People want a subsidy regime that’s quite a bit less neoliberal, that does even more for the environment and structural change within the sector, but without fucking over farmers.

Without subsidies farming would be dead in Europe, which is problematic for two reasons: First off, food security, secondly, capital would swarm out into the third world exploiting land and people there to produce food to sell here.

Bud, these farmers are all about CAFOs. Intensive animal farming delivers almost all of the animal products.

I’m sorry please what the village my sister is living it has no animal-raising farms at all. Two or three small chicken coops, but not for commercial purposes.

When we’ll return to the land on mass, in a few decades, because that’s the only way to survive

OMFG. Go to the countryside. Right now. Move there. Speak to farmers. Fucking primitivist city fuck, who’s going to produce cancer medicine in your world.

Of course, the rentiers are worse. I agree with that.

Rentiers which receive agricultural subsidies, btw.

Right, because they’re not workers. The farmers are managers and owners of technology. And they’re becoming unnecessary.

Petite bourgois are by definition workers. Those farmers very much can’t live from capital income alone. They’re folks who studied (in one way or the other) agriculture, they are making decisions as to what to grow when and where, they’re out there in the fields grabbing dirt and inspecting roots and making decisions about when to fertilise, when to harvest. They’re farmers, doing farmer stuff. That doesn’t change just because they hired the neigbour’s son to drive the tractor over one field while they’re inspecting another. Or, once every year, a bunch of Ukrainians come along and help with harvesting stuff that needs harvesting by hand.

And no they’re very much not unnecessary. What’s it with vegans and being city kids completely alienated from how their food is grown.

At least try to understand the role of fossil fuels and technology in all of this.

It’s not just fossil fuels, import-dependent agriculture is generally a problem and those issues also include, say, phosphates. Not a climate change issue but a general sustainability one (those mines won’t last forever), with further impacts on the local environment (overfertilisation and everything).

Meanwhile saying “your diesel is going to cost more” to farmers who couldn’t afford to buy electric tractors if those even existed in the first place is tone-deaf as fuck.

Do you think organic farmers have it easier than conventional ones? Or don’t drive diesels? Boy oh boy. The prices you get for produce are higher, yes, but it’s also more work. Which wouldn’t be an issue if you weren’t saying “farmers don’t work”.

Many of those farmers don’t own land, they lease it. Maybe they own one field because they come from an old farming family, but not the rest of the fields they need to even break even. And a tractor needs to be driven and you need to get up early even if it is GPS-enabled and can micro-dose fertiliser into the exact spots the field needs.

Don’t bring your US “one farm from horizon to horizon” POV into European agriculture. That’s pretty much the case pretty much nowhere over here.

Lastly, I never said “those workers”. Did you even reply to the right comment.

You’re talking about small business owners getting corporate welfare for decades, slowly losing to the bigger capitalists, which is the inevitable result of capitalism.

Talking about Germany: We’re talking about farmers getting squeezed out by supermarkets and other traders and by subsidies geared towards increasing farm size. It has been decades-long state policy to shaft small farmers and benefit large ones.

That exact subsidy regime is what they’re protesting.

I agree that the competition issue is a problem, but most of them will support neoliberalism: deregulation, the race to the bottom.

They’re protesting that EU environmental and animal welfare regulations are costing them too much, yes. But they aren’t fundamentally opposed to those regulations, they simply don’t want to be the ones stuck with the bill. They can’t afford those bills.

And the animal sector needs to end. The feed crop farmers can switch to food crops.

Bullshit. Intensive animal farming needs to end, meat needs to become more expensive (and also btw butcher’s wages need to be increased), protein imports need to end (i.e. South American soy), but Europe has plenty of agricultural land to produce meat sustainably. There’s plenty of landscapes we can’t preserve without animal agriculture as European bisons aren’t really a thing, any more, neither are wolves which would be necessary to keep the bisons in check should they be re-introduced on a larger scale and we refuse to hunt them.

If you don’t want to eat meat that’s your choice and I support it, but don’t expect that bullshit statistics (like counting water raining down on meadows as “water use”) impress anyone not invested in your moral system. Least of all ecologists.