Not sure what guns have to do with the ineffectiveness of punching Nazis but OK.

Feel free to punch your way out. You’ll find it equally effective.

I disagree. Fascists want to simply every conflict this way—“They’re coming to kill you, so we need to kill then first”. By accepting the conflict on those terms, you’ve already conceded a rhetorical battle.

Leftists have rarely excelled at martial conflict. It’s not typically our strength. Our strength instead is that we fundamentally want to help people and make the world more free and just. We win by making sure people understand that. Getting into fist fights with Nazis undermines this strategy and doesn’t do anything to fundamentally undermine their power.

This is a false dichotomy. There are effective ways to defeat Nazis beyond punching them or reasoned debate.

Violence is justified in life or death struggles where other options have become unrealistic. That’s not the situation we’re in in the West 99% of the time. Deplatforming, doxxing, civil resistance, and verious other forms of nonviolent struggle all have a better track record than street brawls which have done nothing but empower fascists. In fact, the sense of fear and chaos that these events creates is exactly the environment in which fascism will thrive. Street brawls between fascists and leftists were prominent in the Weimar Republic and did nothing to stop Nazi power—if anything it made it easier for the right to unite and paint leftists as unreasonable extremists. We see similar patterns happening today.

Politics is not the same as armed struggle. We are not engaged in armed struggle against fascism in the west. Perhaps we will be but right now one of our goals should be to avoid that becoming necessary. In the current moment public relations and persuasion matter immensely. Punching Nazis achieves little other than making people lose sight of the dangers of fascism and focus instead on “extremism” from “both sides”.

And OP has done nothing to suggest they are sympathetic to fascism so your threats against them are extremely rude and unjustified.

Earlier in the year I collected some fruit from a Ficus macrophylla which is a rare tree in my area. After annoying my wife by soaking the fruit in water on our counter for a few weeks, then sowing the seed in a small humidity box, I had almost given up hope when nothing germinated for over a month. But this past week, some finally popped up. I transferred a few into bigger containers but I need to figure out what to do with the rest.

Hoping to grow some magnificent trees someday. Here’s what they’ll grow into for the uninitiated:

I’m also trying to root and propagate some water spinach I bought at a farmers market recently. Delicious, I hope it takes. Got some good roots growing but the plant looks a bit sickly. I am going to move it to a more sunny position and hope that helps.

A maple tree I planted last fall has almost doubled in size which is a really good growth rate.

On a less successful note, I think I didn’t water my raspberry enough and it looks pretty dead. Was a bit of a stretch in my climate but my wife loves them and I love her… oh well.

I can’t draw anything, unfortunately. I feel like I can picture him pretty well though.

Something being a social construct has nothing to do with its importance. There are many social constructs that are extremely important, and many that are less so.

Honestly this is a good example of where a justice system that doesn’t revolve around incarceration would be better. Obviously this isn’t a situation society can just let fly but what becomes of this child now that their mom is locked up? Nothing good.

Edit: or maybe she isn’t, the article doesn’t mention any possible sentences.

This seems really detached from what we know of the situation. I would ignore these types of takes unless they’re based on on the ground information. Many people want to believe so strongly that their government is just that they will find a way to justify anything, including mass-murder of civilians.

But I hope more details of what actually happened will come out in the coming days.

I mean technically all of human behavior is an automatic response of the nervous system. That doesn’t mean it’s not influenced by culture or personal experiences. What constitutes a threat is highly modified by your past experiences, and people can learn to behave differently in stressful environments. We don’t just completely turn off the brain when frightened, that’s nonsense.

I’m not sure this is generally true but if there was a difference it’d likely be due to social conditioning.

Is that how this technology works? I’m not the most knowledgeable about tech stuff honestly (at least by Lemmy standards).

I read that but it also seems to indicate that she’s a third generation monarch in her family. Maybe it’s not officially hereditary but it’s a bit sus. Not to mention that monarchies are bad for reasons beyond their (typically) hereditary nature.

I also think the presidency is a harmful institution but I know most people aren’t there yet.

On the one hand, awesome to see young women having a role in leadership. On the other hand, monarchy is pretty much the worst form of government.

Pirating isn’t stealing but yes the collective works of humanity should belong to humanity, not some slimy cabal of venture capitalists.

I just don’t think the evidence that supports this idea is very strong at all. Like maybe men on average did more hunting than women, but I haven’t seen any evidence to support this framing that women only hunted in times of need.

Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to know much for certain about the culture of prehistoric humans. But there is strong circumstantial evidence, like women buried with hunting implements, etc. which suggests that female hunters were prominent in at least some cultures.

I can’t believe so many people upvoted this comment. Do they just assume because there are lots of words and you referenced the original paper that this is a good critique? But I guess a lot of people just turn off their brain when they feel cognitive dissonance.

Do you know what a survey is? It’s not meant to be comprehensive, it’s supposed to be representative. Furthermore, it is based on existing ethnographic data, so it’s obviously not going to include data on tribes that are currently uncontacted, because there is little or none. The reasons why are obvious but since you don’t seem to understand, we can spell it out.

Conducting anthropological research on these tribes typically involves going to the tribe and living with, observing, and interviewing them for an extended period to fully understand their culture and way of life. This is not advisable with uncontacted tribes because it is dangerous for researchers and dangerous for the tribe which may lack exposure to endemic diseases in the rest of the world. It’s simply not done and I guarantee no ethics board would approve such research today.

Furthermore, it’s hilarious to suggest that the authors deliberately omitted cultures we know little about to reinforce their own agenda. How would they even know which tribes the exclude? And, as others have pointed out, even if all of these uncontacted tribes had only male hunting (a fact which would be highly surprising), it would barely change the conclusion here that in most forager societies, women engage in hunting.

Overall, this seems a very bad-faith critique. It’s good to delve into the science and examine whether a given paper was conducted in a sound way, but you need to approach it with an open mind, not just seek to undermine it with the simplest and most superficial criticism you can conceive of that supports your pre-existing position.

I agree that they overstated their point there. But regardless, I think it’s fair to say that any differences between men and women in these sports are fairly small, so I don’t think it changes the overall conclusion.

Certainly a question for the ages. If only there was some way to learn more about this topic… perhaps some kind of article. Maybe one that even addresses this very point. But alas…