Marabel

Bro just be born into the kind of generational wealth that smoothly elides the everyday setbacks of your youth, setting you up for a firm foundation of financial security going into your future bro. It's not even hard bro. Literal babies do it bro.

I find it odd that right wingers on The Other Site get mad at Rawls for saying you don't morally deserve traits your born with, like that's not the kind of thing that could count for or against you in any morally significant way. Cos this seems... obvious to me? Like why would morality track that?

True outside the academy, but not the case for grad school and academic jobs yet, as far as I know. I don't trust fully trust University higher ups not to push it at some point, but at least in the humanities and social sciences, there would likely be a lot of resistance

Climate change is working hard so this can be a reality

I realise I'm just a freak, but living in a multicultural city is the best thing of all time, it's just the best possible human experience and i can not understand why anyone on earth would be like "weve got to destroy this"

Screenshot from an old game, one person lies face down on the floor lika a starfish, another seems completely undisturbed by this and says "hello, I have good news for you." there is a heart by the speech bubble. Behind him, there are two horses

How your email finds me

My point is that they don't just say something about people, they say something *to* people beyond just the person pictured. Group actions affect individual perceptions, so even passive observers may (subconsciously) wonder what you did to deserve public disrespect and treat you less seriously

Analogue or Photoshop versions of this are classics of workplace harassment, it's not really that new or special. The problem with it is not just the personal humiliation, but the social climate it reinforces, in which gendered disrespect is normalised both generally and against the target

I agree with your stance, but I think that besides the psychological harm, a social harm must be considered. If someone pasted my face on a naked picture of someone else and put it up in a public square, the public act of disrespect itself is likely to have social ramifications.

Are we talking actual landslides, not figurative ones? If so, @miguelohn.bsky.social has worked on earthquakes and if there is any work specifically on landslides, he'll know it

We are rapidly cycling back to a point where the most reliable sources of information online are websites made by some rando in 2003

Welcome back :) it has really gone from bad to unbearable in recent months over there... I've been debating leaving, but there are a few people I really enjoy following, which has stopped me from fully abandoning my account. You are one of them, so I'm glad you're here now!

fair point. Still, any misinterpretation that's actually likely to occur here is qualitatively very different from abolish the police or prisons. No one looks at those slogans and thinks oh, they're advocating for another violent system very much like the one we have now

Farage, who had previously said mass deportations were a "political impossibility", said his party had now come up with "a credible plan, so that we can deport hundreds of thousands of people over the five years of a Reform government". During the news conference, Farage asked Reform UK chair Zia Yusuf whether it was realistic to deport 500,000-600,000 people within the lifetime of the first Parliament under a Reform UK government, to which he replied "totally, yeah".

A sobering thought: were Nigel Farage to become Prime Minister then the terrifying scenes from Minneapolis would become terrifying scenes here.

For police and prison, people find it hard to imagine alternatives, so their only option is to interpret the statement as "so, just chaos then?", good faith or not. That makes it an imperative to spell out what such a world would look like. In contrast, an option without ICE is in living memory

My point is not that "abolish ICE" is perfectly coherent in a vacuum, but that it is very easy for anyone to fill the gaps, because we can all imagine better institutions that fulfil a similar-ish role in society. Misunderstanding it as "zero border enforcement" is a way bigger interpretative jump

Mine is, yeah. But more broadly, I think the actual way ICE functions is so far removed from any coherent immigration policy that "reform ICE" is the more confusing messaging. It's easy to imagine a decent system without it, that's why "abolish ICE" makes sense to people without disclaimers

I can see how that's what most activists envision when they say abolish the police and prisons, but it seems to me that most don't think about abolishing ICE in this way? Like, I'm not sure "what do we do to replace the fascist anti-immigration gang?" is a serious question

I was going to repost this with mine to start a chain but you already found the perfect answer

If you manage to end a philosophy paper like this, beers are forever on me

There are several annual competitions for best opening sentences, but the best closing sentence will forever be "The girl I've been dating for a month made me realize this."

Annoying, but at least your data is probably not getting harvested!

Interesting post! I agree with your points about the over-emphasis of experiential knowledge, but I think that might have more to do with it being such an easy example of situated knowledge that is often dismissed. The concept of epistemic injustice can cover much more than that

Doing this challenge called “January” where I try to make it through the whole month of January

Snowy park at night with a warmly lit house on the far end

Evening walk in the snow

Uncritical acceptance of social-epistemological categories shouldn't fly in political philosophy of science. The undifferentiated "scientist" as technical expert might be good enough for epistemologists, but separating economic positions among scientists is necessary for political analysis

And the opinion of the world, its consideration or disdain, cannot change that fact. That is why it would seem to me ludicrous to solicit or try to affect it. But it does not seem ludicrous to me to underline how the present world crisis stems from these quarrels about presidents and power. To summarize this evening and speaking now for myself, I would like to say just this: whenever we judge France, or any other country, or any matter, in terms of power, we are aiding and abetting a conception of man that leads inevitably to his mutilation. We are reinforcing the thirst for domination and we are headed towards the sanctioning of murder. What goes for the world of action goes for ideas. And those who say or write that the end justifies the means, those who say and write that greatness is measured by force, they are absolutely responsible for the atrocious accumulation of crimes disfiguring contemporary Europe.

As relevant as ever, Albert Camus, who died on this day.

Went into 2025 with no new year's resolutions, didn't have a great year. So in 2026, I resolve to fix my entire life and all my failures as a person, though I suspect that won't work out either. It's a dialectic approach, I expect it will all come together in 2027

Exactly! If you've overcooked your abstraction, just let it cool for a bit

unlike those other philosophers, I aspire to explanations at the exact right level of abstraction