• 0 Posts
  • 43 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 4th, 2023

help-circle
  • I’ve been wondering a lot about absurdism in humour. There are people who laugh when they see something disastrous happen, like a man reflexively trying to stop a cement truck from tipping and getting squashed dead. Or a recent news story of the only fatality in a school bus crash: it was an observer who got hit by a vehicle as he ran across the highway to see if the kids were ok. A lot of the time this laughing response to a disaster is interpreted as schadenfreude, but a good portion of the time I believe it’s absurdism.

    We try so hard to have agency, to do something, but the World doesn’t give a fuck. You have two choices when shit goes so wrong: you can wail about the unfairness of it all, or you can laugh at the absurdity of our efforts in the face of the colossal chaos of it all. The laughter is stronger.

    It’s interesting to me that some cultures seem to have absurd humour baked in. The Aussies and Kiwis seem to have it. They just make jokes about and laugh at the most horrific situations.



  • IRC the genetics don’t support that. It looks more like Polynesians originate from the area around Taiwan, sharing DNA with the indigenous Taiwanese. Again IRC there are some South American genes present in the Easter Island or Tahiti area, which seem to have been introduced pre-European contact. It’s tricky to tell though because there has been so much sharing of genetics since then. It looks like maybe some Polynesians went to South America one or a few times and returned.









  • Taniwha420@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzgeoengineering
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I maintain that we have a battle of world views going on here. In some ways it’s about the myths we believe in. Most environmentalists believe in what I call the Hobbit Paradigm: we live in a beautiful garden, and if we grounded ourselves in relationships with our communities (including nature) we would have a good and sustainable life. Many technocentrists believe in what I call the Star Trek Paradigm: humans are limitlessly ingenious, technological solutions will save us, and Nature is viewed with an anthropocentric utilitarian ethic.

    I do not believe in the Star Trek Paradigm. It’s hubris. I also don’t think it’s a very pragmatic paradigm. We live in a world we evolved to live in. Not worrying about this world because we think terraforming other planets and setting up space bases might be a possibility is not comprehending the Good or risk very well, IMHO.

    I suppose a third paradigm is cold-blooded, individualist Realpolitik; It’s a dog eat dog world, fuck you, I’m just trying to get mine as hard as everyone else is. In this case Space Colonisation is just a beard to disguise a callous and usurious relationship to the beings is this world.

    That makes the conflict one of story, of myth, which means no one will have their minds changed by facts. They’re belief systems. We need to expose those fundamentally short -sighted or selfish beliefs. We need to tell better stories, and expose the ridiculousness of the other stories.



  • Oh man, I think it’s the ‘e’ at the end of your name, which in a bunch of Romance languages would make it feminine. If it’s any consolation, solid men’s English names like ‘Lindsay’ and ‘Ashley’ are almost exclusively women’s names now for the same reason. (The “-y” or “-ie” marks a cutesy diminutive version, i.e. “bird” to “birdy”.)

    I don’t think it’s the similarity to “Imane” (unless this is happening in your home culture) because I have never heard of that name before. However, I have seen “Imran” and I would have assumed that “Imrane” was the feminine version because of that ‘e’.

    Wasn’t Imran Khan a famous cricketer?