i dont believe in non-dysphoria trans people. not in the sense that i dont think they're trans, but in the sense that i dont think they're non-dysphoric
Having autism or ADHD, by definition, makes you disabled. I am tired of this "different abled" bullshit, and am especially tired of people with ADHD or autism who use mental gymnastics to justify their view that they are somehow not disabled. By *definition*, you do not have either if you are not disabled by them. Period.
It's always "all cops are bastards" and never "all medical professionals are bastards." Why do people refuse to acknowledge some kinds of institutional abuse?
At it's simplest, libertarianism is the philosophy that an individual is wholly in control of their own life, and have freedoms thereof, so long as they do not infringe on the aforementioned liberties of others. Unfortunately, libertarianism, despite not necessitating a particular set of fiscal views, has become increasingly associated in some places with right-"libertarianism"; which neglects these ideals by extending said liberties to corporate structure.
Fiscal policy is irrelevant. Control is control. I don't care if the control is from the state or from private corporations. It's still control, and it still stands in the way of individual liberty.
shoving AI into everything ignores one of the most fundamental and beautiful aspects of our world – that everything that isn't natural is made by a human mind, with their own aspirations, goals, thoughts, and the leakage of those in their innovation
Computers! Don't! Care! About! Your! Pronouns! (or dislike thereof). Computing is egalitarian. Your computer isn't going to care about your philosophy. Your computer isn't going to discriminate against you on any basis, be that race, sex, sexuality, gender, or any other characteristic – immutable or not. Your computer is upset you fed it an unexpected NUL byte! You should solve that first, before making even the humble transistor a culture war issue.
I know this. I'm sure there was a real Muhammad who existed. I don't doubt either that he existed, or even that there are accurate accounts of his life. I'm saying Muslims do not revere that Muhammad. They revere the mythologized figure described in the Quran and Hadith, both of which are not reliable sources of information (as you've pointed out yourself!).
I thought I’d post all of this slowly, but since you’ve asked directly, I’ll post my response in a series of comments to this repost.
To summarise though.
There’s more evidence for the existence of Muhammad than probably any other figure in ancient history. The evidence we have is not like the Bible, where we don’t have even the names of the people narrating each gospel. No, for Muhammad, we have the names of each person and even the chain of narration, telling us each name that passed the story on until it gets to the person the writes it down.
Also, the timeline of Aisha’s marriage will also be in comments. Suffice to say, the age range we get for her marriage is between 14-24. Disturbing at the low end, but smashing the 6 or 9 myth and when precise numbers are involved, mostly by using the recorded age of her sister, the age we get for her at time of consummation of marriage is 20.
Neurons drive consciousness for sure, but there is no neuron for sight or hearing, rather there are networks of them that create the sensations of sight and hearing.
Also, on a fundamental physical level there has to be a physical process that allows this all to happen, otherwise you’re saying that neurons have this weird special place in reality.
If there’s a fundamental process driving consciousness then what I’ve said is true.
This is irrelevant, because the Muhammad who Muslims revere is not the Muhammad who actually lived. He's a mythologized figure. And regardless, can you show me one of these efforts to build a timeline?
To be clear, if you were to ask a lot Muslims what was true, they would take your position mostly based on respect for some long dead religious figure.
However, I’m telling you that if you interrogate the primary sources, you would struggle to corroborate the story. In fact, every attempt shows it to be false.
I have little interest in following some long dead religious figure that is deemed “authoritative”. My sole focus is in working out what is actually true.
Decentralized mutual aid structures are the obvious answer; though these have limitations. Largely, minimal government is practically needed, but its purpose should primarily be focused on large-scale fiscal issues and have limited involvement in a person's individual life.
I am genuinely tired of the assumption that all libertarians are laissez-faire ultra capitalists. I'm an anticapitalist. I'm also a libertarian – at least, by some definition of the word. We exist.
It should be clarified that the six books (including the Sahihayn) are held to be canonical by Sunni Muslims, Sunnism being by far the most believed sect of Islam.
an API would probably be the best solution. i feel something with websockets might work well for bots that read every new message that's sent, but a regular HTTP API should still be present.