Notices by sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net), page 2
-
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Sunday, 11-Jan-2026 14:05:07 JST 
sj_zero
With a fully semiautomatic SUV which we all know was originally developed as a weapon of war. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Monday, 05-Jan-2026 22:04:58 JST
sj_zero
Once you make free food, Free water, free shelter, free healthcare human rights that must be provided or you're satan, why not free sex?
I'm not even necessarily saying that from for example the standpoint of saying that universal healthcare should never exist, but there's a difference between making something available through the state because it's a nice or useful idea and making something available through the state because there is a duty or obligation to provide that thing, and if they are failing to then they are committing some crime against humanity.
In the example of healthcare, it's a nice thing to have while society is Rich enough to provide it, but if society ceases to be rich enough to provide it then that service has to go away. In that case it ends up being a government provided service that is not a fundamental human right.
As fundamental human rights, both healthcare and sex require a specific person in the sense of an individual with certain attributes that are not common. Institutions do not provide health care, doctors do. The doctors are particularly intelligent and particularly hard-working people, energy universal sex care system, the state prostitutes would be particularly attractive men and women.
And then you get into the stickiness of making healthcare a human right and some healthcare procedures are effectively murder. For example, if doctors are forced to provide medical assistance in dying or forced to provide abortions, then they are being forced to engage in murder. Is it really so morally different forcing someone to have sex versus forcing them to commit murder against their will?
A lot of people will argue until they're blue in the face as to why not free sex, but perhaps the more important question is, why free murder? Demanding that we take resources from everyone regardless of their moral view to pay for this, not because it is a nice thing to do but because it is becoming human right that is a crime against humanity if you don't provide it, in both cases seems really suspect. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Monday, 05-Jan-2026 06:55:09 JST
sj_zero
But let's be real, not really.
I can get on board with the general message you're trying to send here, but the United States has been fucking around in South America since Trump was in diapers -- and the political doctrine probably predates Trump's grandfather.
Munroe doctrine goes back to the early 1800s, and is the doctrine that says "we reserve the right to fuck with things we feel are our interests abroad".
As for south America in general, lots of regime changes and other fuckery occurred during the cold war without any formal declaration of war. Lots of regime changes and the like in the 1950s onwards. Lots of "police actions" that weren't declared by Congress, and nobody got impeached.
Presidents of both parties have done similar things in the past without being impeached. Kennedy, johnson, nixon, Reagan, for the majority of the past century it's just how things were done, and generally people didn't like it but there were no consequences. You just call it a police action, and I think that Trump has, and a lot of people uncomfortably sit with that. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Monday, 05-Jan-2026 00:08:41 JST
sj_zero
There's a big problem with the term conspiracy theory, and that is that, stripped of the value judgments, it is just a theory about a conspiracy. Though of course it's more like a hypothesis about a conspiracy.
The problem with universalizing claims about conspiracy theories is that those claims break when some proportion of those conspiracy hypotheses end up turning out to be conspiracy facts. MKUltra or Project Northwoods or the Tuskegee Syphilis Study are now officially backed conspiracy facts,for example. Arguably, the Manhattan project was a conspiracy fact. Disbelieving these things doesn't make you a clever scientist, it makes you a denier of the official narrative.
There's a similar problem with the term science denier. The nature of science is such that if you're doing the process correctly, most of science will be denied by the process of science. Some of the most famous and respected scientists of the 20th century were science deniers. Einstein and Heisenberg for example denied Newtonian physics that were "the science" and helped create relativity and quantum physics.
In a sense, both terms end up smuggling in epistemological certainty that isn't necessarily warranted. Some of the scientists who put a man on the moon believed in science that today the sort of people who use terms like "science denier" would deny, given how many of them were German national socialists. Nobel prize winning scientists have ended up wrapped up in pseudoscience and using their status to push easily falsifiable claims that are certainly wrong. To deny what they say isn't science denialism in spite of their high status as scientists. The truth is the truth, and that which is not the truth is not. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Sunday, 04-Jan-2026 13:04:16 JST
sj_zero
i hope when I'm 84 I'm online jerkin people's chains. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Sunday, 04-Jan-2026 09:41:32 JST
sj_zero
"this is Google Gemini for home, the helpful software assistant. In spite of using more computing power than existed in 1975 for every query, I'm not yet able to count from 30 to 0" -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 03-Jan-2026 14:00:49 JST
sj_zero
On a lark I grabbed a bunch of ounces quite a few years ago. It's pretty funny thinking that my random bullion is presently becoming more interesting.
This year in Canada will see the renewalageddon, where lots of people who got million dollar mortgages at 1% in 2021 will have to renew at 4-6%, assuming the banks allow them to refinance at all. Some people who took 5 year variable rate mortgages kept afloat by increasing amortizations to 50-100 years, but they will be required to return to normal amortizations or the mortgages will lose their insurance against default from the cmhc. Given that the housing market and banking are more of the economy than the entire manufacturing sector and most natural resources, it's probably going to destroy the economy and I wouldn't be surprised if Alberta and Quebec finally split. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 03-Jan-2026 13:38:10 JST
sj_zero
Can't lie, people who don't have their butlers do their shopping know the truth. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 03-Jan-2026 01:32:21 JST
sj_zero
The other thing is, Jedi are supposed to have a level of omniscience granted to them by the force, which is why they can block blaster fire with a laser sword -- the force helps them understand where to be next. The idea of these energetic battles with all these useless wasted moves is counter to that. They should feel like battles of strategy and battles of will where individuals move decisively and in ways that matter. All these flips and useless motions run totally counter to that. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 03-Jan-2026 01:32:19 JST
sj_zero
That's really true. Which makes sense -- swashbuckling pirates are cool, don't get me wrong. The problem is that semi-omniscient warrior monks belonging to a thousand year old order aren't pirates. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Wednesday, 31-Dec-2025 19:39:16 JST
sj_zero
Almost nobody is talking about the Renewalageddon in Canada.
60% of mortgages are set to renew in 2026. Unlike the US, where mortgage terms can be up to 30 years fixed, the overwhelming majority of mortgage interest terms are 5 years or less, fixed or variable rate.
Variable rate mortgages have survived with similar payments so far because they stretched amortizations to 50 years, but the CMHC (canadian home mortgage corporation) is not allowing them to renew at those amortizations, so payments will rise more than the amount of the mortgage increase would imply.
Fixed rate mortgages will be renewing at rates going from as low as 0.99% if renewed at trough mortgage rates for 5 years to 4-6%, which is going to massively increase house payments for millions of Canadians.
For a sanely priced house (200-400k), that might be painful but managable. House prices in Canada peaked around 2021 at over 830k, and on a mortgage that big, moving from 1% to 4-6% will mean huge increases in monthly payments.
Mathematically, it looks like we're facing one of the biggest financial crises in Canadian history and even though it's operating like clockwork, nobody is talking about it. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Monday, 29-Dec-2025 09:31:12 JST
sj_zero
Anyone who has spent time around women knows that nobody hates women more than other women. It simply isn't possible.
Don't try, you just don't have that capacity. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Thursday, 25-Dec-2025 22:38:37 JST
sj_zero
Merry Christmas, friends. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 20-Dec-2025 16:39:15 JST
sj_zero
From a superpositional standpoint it's pretty obvious.
People support the police because they do a bunch of things that people do respect and want. If there's murder to be solved, people want the police to be in there. If your house gets robbed, they want the police to come find the guy who did it and lock them up.
At their best, police are protecting people's individual rights from being infringed by others.
People hate the police state because instead of providing basic order and thereby protecting people's rights, they end up using the pretext of order to harm people's individual rights on behalf of the government system.
In a sense, it's similar to left wing arguments against guns: the tool can be misused and often is so we should eliminate the thing. There's a nice first order logic to it, but we live in a multiple order world with multiple effects to an action.
Of course, it could be that having a tool like the police will inevitably mean it gets corrupted and break it's mandate, and that may be true too. Power corrupts, after all.
But it's also true that without some force capable of using force to enforce societal norms, someone else will come in and use force to enforce whatever they want and thus use of force is required.
Does that have to look like contemporary police forces? Not necessarily, but I don't think people who support police are necessarily so fixated on a specific form.
I do think a healthy society is one with mechanisms other than violent enforcement of norms to maintain order. A healthy society has cultural norms and mores, values and concepts such as honor or guilt that serve to get people to act in ways that don't need enforcement in the first place. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Thursday, 18-Dec-2025 18:39:22 JST
sj_zero
Hear me out: since we're selling future generations into debt slavery, how about we pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution but we can legalize selling your kids into slavery since people love that? -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 13-Dec-2025 07:27:36 JST
sj_zero
Most people don't know that cannaboid psychosis is a real and true thing. Also the cannaboid pain syndrome thing where your entire body hurts because of overexposure to pot.
I think a lot of people would be better off knowing about shit like that. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Saturday, 13-Dec-2025 06:40:43 JST
sj_zero
The Canadian government's not gonna like this! -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Dec-2025 06:37:54 JST
sj_zero
Most moderate fedizen -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 11:46:17 JST
sj_zero
My conclusion isn't what you just said.
My conclusion is that going by intersectionality every human is a unique combination of attributes that make us infinitely diverse, so any attempt to stack them together ends up failing. -
Embed this notice
sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 11:46:13 JST
sj_zero
I spent a lot of time laying things out to hopefully clear things up.
The confusion here isn’t personal. It comes from trying to use clean, totalising categories on a reality that is messy, layered, and often internally contradictory. My own framework starts from the assumption that paradox and inconsistency are normal features of the world, not bugs to be eliminated.
When I say “stacking fails,” I’m not saying statistics or population-level analysis are useless. Aggregates obviously exist and are useful at the level they’re meant for. The problem is a different one: stacking people into categories necessarily requires prejudice (Not in a moral sense, but in the sense that you must assume everything about someone based on a limited selection criteria). To reduce prejudice and get things more correct you need to add more attributes to separate people into those categories to make it more accurate, but in so doing the less coherent that category becomes. At sufficiently high resolution, you are no longer describing a group in any meaningful way, you are describing an individual.
That is not a mathematical failure. It is a categorical one. The error happens when you try to take that compressed, simplified image of a population and apply it back onto real, complex human beings.
This is why I am cautious about any framework, including intersectionality, that emphasises the stacking of people into identity variables. If a person is the intersection of dozens or hundreds of factors (history, class, ancestry, education, geography, culture, trauma, opportunity, neurotype, family, etc.), then no small handful of those factors can stand in for the whole person. The more seriously you take that idea, the more it breaks down low-resolution identity thinking. Your piles of people are almost random because even if in aggregate they look a certain way, individually they can be quite different. You can stack into more categories to try to capture people in a more robust model, but as you continue you end up with a near-infinitely complex model, with n piles to represent n people.
This also exposes how unstable many of our categories really are. Ethnicity is not clean or consistent. Language, names, appearance, and culture are shaped by environment, migration, class, and historical accident as much as ancestry. Mexico is a nation, not an ethnicity. A single person can descend from both conquered and conqueror, enslaved and enslaver, oppressed and powerful. These labels collapse under even mild historical or genetic scrutiny.
At the same time, it is obvious that different people experience both advantage and disadvantage, often simultaneously, depending on which variable you examine. The same person can be privileged in one context and marginalised in another. This should make us extremely wary of flattening anyone into a single identity-based narrative.
The real danger appears when systems, not just people, take these simplified categories and operationalise them. Institutions, governments, policies, algorithms, and bureaucracies cannot deal with full human complexity. They are forced to compress people into boxes, risk profiles, types, and groups. Harm happens when those abstractions are mistaken for the actual human beings they are meant to represent.
Governance doesn't necessarily require universal aggregation. That's literally an invention of the modernist era. Before the beginning of the modernist era and the French Revolution, the concept that everyone in a nation needed to be standardized and modularized was not real. One of the reasons for systemic bigotry is that systems were allowed to expand and standardize and make assumptions about everyone living under them, whereas before that governance was more localized. There were problems with that approach as well, but different problems. With a modernist epistemology, this truth is quite invisible, because it's so strongly built into our worldview.
History is full of examples where aggregate observations were converted into essential rules about individuals. In the United States, the history of slavery and race turned a population-level historical condition into a permanent, inherited social status for millions of unrelated individuals. That was not science. It was the misuse of abstraction backed by power.
So I am not rejecting pattern recognition. I am rejecting the move where patterns are treated as people, when a simplified model becomes an identity, and an identity becomes a fate. The aggregate is not the individual. A label is not a human being.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the