A very well-reasoned answer, thank you!

Thanks. Good point!

I’m just a peon on mint.

Here’s a question: if you know the steak isn’t real, having copied only your memory of it from the matrix, but you know that the original had to have been based on the experience of killing a real animal, is the nonexistent steak vegan? What if all cows are already extinct, like in the world of the Matrix?

A great point, but I wonder if it would have reached that point if cypher had been given relaxation time and good experiences in the construct from the start.

So, as Cypher made clear, the main draw of the matrix was that he didn’t have to spend his entire life being miserable, with shit to eat, and nothing enjoyable to do. Soo… What about the constructs? If they could simulate people and sensory input with enough fidelity to “learn kungfu”, couldn’t they simulate the experience of a juicy steak? Why, when they weren’t actually spending their time outside the matrix doing much other than sitting in a spaceship, wouldn’t they just spend 6 hours a day in the construct (again, not the matrix, their own simulated construct)? Wouldn’t that have given them all much more practice with breaking the construct of the matrix, and also let them have the nice stuff that the matrix offered, and also knowing that they were the masters of their own destinies? It seems like Morpheus was just a shitty manager, and Cypher was unfulfilled in his job.

This is a shit take, and is antithetical to scientific progress. If you have modeled similar scenarios, or observed othee phenomena, you can absolutely accurately describe unfamiliar situations and predict future outcomes, even of complex systems, and can even predict the likely bounds of accuracy. This is the basis for hypothesis testing. This quote can easily be used to disclaim anything you don’t like by the facile assumption that, if someone disagrees with you, they clearly haven’t “done enough research”. This stinks of anti-vax and conspiracy bullshit, and any framework which has this as a foundation is easily corrupted. This post has nothing to do with late-stage capitalism at all.

Mao clearly needed to do more investigation.

Are you suggesting with your post that the Russian Federation is communist? This is entertaining.

Umm, but, given the amount of hate speech being spewed by reform, was it a justified takedown? As I didn’t see the video, I can’t know, but I’m unsure what this has to do with privacy. Speech can be simultaneously political and dangerous, as anyone even mildly familiar with Germany in the 30’s and 40’s should be able to attest.

Whew, I am ecstatic that this is not the community you were expecting. I’d hate to see a community based around decrying capitalism get turned into something the has nothing to do with capitalism by someone who appears to misunderstand the very concept behind the original subreddit. Thankfully, idiocy always advertises itself thus. Thank you for your service in outing yourself. Always wonderful to have another username for the tag list.

It was placed there when the grass wasn’t green.

Absolutely! And I never claimed it didn’t. However, the solidification of what “hell” is, and what “Lucifer” looks like, is in large part thanks to popular sources like Dante and Milton.

The person asked the question, specifically, why Christians conflate the two, and whether it is true that they are always the same person. Notice that the question asks not just for a dogmatic response, but a comparative religious analysis. While it is true that “modern Christians treat them like the same person”, saying “they are the same person” doesn’t answer the question at all. It asked why do Christians treat them like the same person, and the actual answer is that medieval Christians conflated a lot of things, made up a bunch of demons, and also took secular sources like Milton and Dante as authoritative gospel, rather than religious fiction. If you’re going based on the actual bible, Lucifer is a star in the sky, and precisely nothing more. Even the Serpent from the garden is only conflated with Satan.

Literally ignore the other people. They clearly don’t know what they’re talking about, though anise is at least close. The name Lucifer originally referred to Venus, the morning star. It comes from Roman Latin, long before Christianity was a thing, and literally just means light-bringer. The Hebrew name for Venus is mentioned a single time in the bible, referencing a Babylonian king who was given the title. You can probably thank St. Jerome for replacing the Hebrew name for the planet with “Lucifer”, but I’m not certain on that one. I’m not a scholar of mediaeval church Latin. Never, not once in the bible, is Lucifer conflated with the devil. In fact, even the original Satan was called the Adversary not because he was YHWH’s adversary, but because he was effectively God’s District Attorney, prosecuting the wrongs of mortals. The entire conflation with Satan as evil happened between the recording of the Hebrew bible and the development of Christianity. Hence why Satan is pretty much only mentioned in the New Testament.

Pretty much every single thing modern Christians believe about the devil, or especially hell, was made up in the middle ages, and a hefty amount of that by Dante alone.

I recommend reading the wiki pages for both, since they’re interesting reads, but you should definitely check me on this. Don’t take my word for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

Check their earliest histories.

E: forgot to mention that Milton was another one of the people who made up large portion of the modern idea of “hell”, which was originally a term from old Norse, and so he and Dante basically combined the Norse He’ll and the Greek Hades to make “Hell” as we know it today, complete with the Lord of Hell. It’s all syncretism.

I mean, yeah, one of the more famous police procedurals is literally “Miami vice”.

This is an AI slop Spam Bot. Every single post it has made in the last two hours stops in the middle of a sentence, with each comment being at best sycophancy, and at worst a total non-sequitur. Everyone should report this spam from an undeclared bot account.

All the way down all 40 minutes of its posting history

And it even made another slop top-level-comment on this post as soon as I downvoted it into the negatives.

But the “Miami police department” does, and these character saren’t named as specific individuals. Only the police department. The police department is certainly, itself, a “public figure”, which the defendants could easily demonstrate using the public figure’s social media posts and press releases. Is there case law saying that a group such as a corporation cannot constitute a “public figure”?

<Narrator, to audience>: “They Hadn’t.”

Removed by mod