Quill7513

Ever since college I've always worn a cheap watch on my wrist least for the same reason my grandpa stopped keeping a pocket watch: its more convenient to check on your wrist for the time than your pocket.

Granted we're getting way off topic here since except for a few years its ways been a digital watch. Asserting analog watches are more numerous in models when digital watches are more numerous in sales, therefore reading an analog clock is a useful skill is odd to me. When I was wearing an analog watch for my allergies it was a flieger because the mental tax of making the hands turn into a singular time was a frustration.

I learned, though, from this that how you present time changes how you perceive time. Kids who grow up with digital representations of time consider "the current moment" in a much narrower and instantaneous scope than people who grew up thinking of time as being a spectrum on a dial

its not in their standardized tests and that's the only thing that determines funding. Its a nightmare ...

Are you thinking of Texas?

If the partner count is larger than the number of bananas I can imagine being in a bunch I decline cookies. If I can't disable performance or targeting cookies I decline cookies. These are my rules

Really wish we'd start recording the other parts of our history that result in war more. Maybe we wouldn't have to do so much war that way

1 is the right number of info cards

The social democrats were terrified of the workers turning to communism and destroying the Wiemar Republic to build a Leninist dictatorship of the people—a government steeped in authoritarianism and secret police. So they put their weight behind the Nazis in street-battles between brown-shirts and white-shirts. They failed to recognize that by lending legitimacy to any worker movement advocating for authoritarianism and secret police they were signing their death warrant. The Nazis were never that popular but the social democrats authorized the people to tolerate them, even if they didn't like them. The result? Hitler manipulated everyone around him into giving his party more and more power in the name of avoiding Communism. The very first thing he did after becoming the totalitarian authoritarian dictator? Make a pact with Stalin. Again. The Social Democrats created the perfect environment by co-signing Hitler to allow the very thing they were scaredest of to happen. That's why today you see anarcho-communists telling their followers to do things like "don't get involved with Wagner's uprising against Putin. They're not your friends. They're just a slightly different kind of fascist. Best thing we can do is sit back and them bleed eachother."

So that's... One full exploration of how the social democrats enabled Hitler, but there's also another. What did this band of pacifists do as Hitler plunged the world into the most deadly conflict in human history? Did they organize uprisings against him? No. They just kinda planned to wait him out, and remove him through peaceful means. That ship had sailed already but they didn't really get on board with the resistance movements going on within Germany either. If they were in modern times they'd be the people telling people not to march with the Black Lives Matter protests because the best way to get reform is via petition and working within the system. Bear in mind that Hitler completely threw the system in the trash and that the new system in his regime didn't really give room for anyone to resist him through legal means. The social democrats were the leaders that most Germans liked and respected. They were still community leaders, and I think they failed to recognize that a lot of people looked to them for guidance on what to do about Hitler and what they saw was to just go along with it, tolerate all the violence, and hope a better day would come.

If you're interested in an actual good journalist instead of some internet rando talking about all this check out Behind the Bastards: How Nice, Normal People Made The Holocaust Possible.

"It has recently been explained to me that my actions have consequences"

Hitchhikers Guide to the Revolution

My ethical training in college was largely around that moral relativism is fucking terrible and will let anyone justify anything under the right conditions. It is one of my core beliefs that morality and ethics demand us to talk about what is right and wrong and where we root these views. Cards all out on the table, my foundation are the ethics of care (Look into Carol Gilligan) which emphasizes that what defines us is the relationships between each other as being the roots of where what right and wrong is comes from

Neorodivergents and people what weren't heterosexual/cisgender. Our current moral panic is the same moral panic as every moral panic there's ever been. They're all the same moral panic. And yeah. Johann Weyer's solution by modern standards sounds barbaric, but when you compare it in context to "Drown the autistic kid" / "Drown the trans lesbians", he's downright a radical progressive when it comes to seeing the humanity in others

"I know what to do. I'll murder my way out"