• 0 Posts
  • 35 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 2nd, 2024

help-circle
  • No great wisdom either, but my main thought about this is that games are designed to keep your dopamine coming (maybe overly nature scientific way of saying: they are exciting, rewarding).

    Other activities can do that to, but some are rewarding in a more subtle way or more on a long term. Like, not “ringring yOu fOuNd DIAMOND!!”. So in comparison with games they might not trigger your motivation (dopamin?) as quickly.

    On the other hand they are probably better at making you feel more general connectedness, belonging, sense, emotional diversity, etc.

    So my advice (wich I struggle alot to follow myself) is: Avoid or limit the other dopamine traps like random scrolling and give yourself and the not-designed- for-dopamine-optimization-world some time, some patient goodwill. This might make that good ol’ world shine bright enough to not get bored all the time.





  • 3 - Participating in and commenting on the voting mechanism is just one bit of the overall development of political, social and cultural history.

    What seems to be “normal” or “acceptable” or “possible” to a given person/part of a population, is the outcome of discourse and maybe more important: concrete options.

    Tangible options to participate in something solidary that’s useful and provides meaningful participation, make left values and ideas soo much more credible and “in reach”.

    IMO these options and experiences can at the moment only really be created from below. Neither corporations nor the government (any time soon) will provide the people with democratic economic solitutions, neighboorhood solidarity, labor organization, collective housing, social movements etc.

    You are so much more than voters. You can organize the practical and ideological negation of the BS you oppose so rightfully.

    Be it a better third option or leftshifting the dems, anyway the whole voting part of history will become more fun that way, too.









  • kwomp2@sh.itjust.worksto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneFrench rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well my point is just it’s neither fully determined as in ahistoric rule nor random as in “changes all the time” or “everyone has their own singular definitions and concepts”. And in between there is the sweet spot of understanding, interpretation and development…


  • kwomp2@sh.itjust.worksto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneFrench rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Objective and socially constructed isn’t a ‘hard’ contradiction.

    Yes of course language evolves and so on, but in a given time(period) it needs to be interpretable more or less independently from the specific actor (a dictionary ensures this, even though it needs to be updated regularly).

    In other words yeah sometimes language comes up with new stuff. If it would do it all the time, it wouldn’t function


  • kwomp2@sh.itjust.worksto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneFrench rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is a week analogy… french only works as a means of communication because it has internal rules that are objective (as in different people understand the same/very similar thing when hearing/seeing a symbol/word).

    Singularity of experience is cool, but anything social requires communication/synchronization.

    Even though gender is used as a box or definition people are forced to fit into (and this is bad), reducing human experience to a blackbox kind of singularity is a highly individualist take.

    You can work on understanding each other without forcing anyone to fit into your definition…





  • Imagine the letter H and G would look similar. Now imagine there was a language that didn’t have the letter H. People who spoke that language would post: “Hot Dog” and then go like “aaaahahaha imagine God Dog, like a god thats a dog”.

    Now add the fact that germans know and use the word burger regularly and do posess knowledge of the existence of different languages and that “burger” is an english word, thus pronunciation differs.

    So I’d say no, not funny.

    Then again I have laughed about and made jokes that made use of the similarity of burger and Bürger. But I guess the “rofl different languages”-element needs to be combined with smth more to qualify as a joke.

    Yours, german giving german answers


  • This should be taken with a grain of salt, just as yours and op, but neuroplasticity makes arguments like yours shaky (well well well if this isn’t gonna turn out to be our old friend dialectics). If children just had a special environment, you’d find the physiological countepart. So unless it’s controlled for otherwise, you can’t make a one directional proof out of it