Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Why would they be?

[pisskop]

With the capacity to survive in space, its likely you could avoid any accident large enough to wipe out the species.  Its likely that I'll live to see the first manned visit to mars, and once we start delicious industry in space we'll see actual colonies.

[Frumple]

It probably depends on just how spacefaring they are. Iirc there's stellar phenomena (novas, mostly?) that can more or less scour most everything within a damn long distance. If you can get out and about, but not out and about enough to avoid stuff like that, you're still in the extinguish zone.

It's certainly better for survival than being stuck inside your planet's atmosphere, but it's not a surety without some caveats. You need to be able to reach (and live in) other solar systems at a minimum, methinks, and that alone might not actually be enough.

Now, if you can get out there, and spread your species far enough any particular chunk of it can vanish in a blaze of fiery death without major issue, then yeah you're going to be pretty much impossible to get rid of, at the absolute least until we're a lot closer to universal heat death or somethin'.

[TamerVirus]

What if the heat death of the universe is scheduled for next Tuesday?

[KittyTac]

Natural means would probably almost never extinguish a spacefaring civilization. A war between two of those civilizations? Possibly.

[scriver]

War. War never changes. Except once we started sending atmosphere-buster size nuclear asteroids at each other's planets.

[smjjames]

Natural means would probably almost never extinguish a spacefaring civilization. A war between two of those civilizations? Possibly.

A civil war or some other societal collapse that leads to a dark age might knock them down from ‘spacefaring’.

[overseer05-15]

War. War never changes. Except once we started sending atmosphere-buster size nuclear asteroids at each other's planets.

It really does never change- just shifts its scaling a little bit.

[Doomblade187]

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/29/615284650/journalist-who-fled-russia-is-fatally-shot-in-his-kiev-apartment

Holy shit. To clarify, he's alive.

[overseer05-15]

"I'm still alive," Arkady Babchenko said

"I'm not dead!"

"He says he's not dead."

"I think I'll go for a walk."

[TamerVirus]

He didn’t tell his wife.
He’s gonna be dead for real when he gets back home

[smjjames]

That whole thing with the faked journalist death seems ethically problematic in light of actual journalist deaths, and right out of a spy novel.

[pikachu17]

There’s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society.

What.. The... Freaking hell? I only vaguely know anything about Anita Sarquesian, and thought she was a feminist attacked by misogynists, but now I can't help think that that is Evil to Evil combat.
Admittedly its on Twitter, but it sure seems to mean exactly what it says.
First of all, It disproves itself, as this is obviously sexist against men.
Also, sexism has literally nothing to do with power. If the lowliest hobo in the world hated women for being women, it would still be sexist.
The very idea that men are the only ones that are sexist is incredibly sexist.
And men are the dominant gender with power in society?
What about matriarchal societies? What about female billionaires? Do they have no power?
And what does she mean by "dominant"? Apparrently, men are never, ever controlled by a woman.
Does she claim that men can't be sexually harassed or raped, too? Because it does not seem that far removed.

[smjjames]

Anita Sarquesian.... wasn’t she one of the two (on opposite sides) that were behind the whole gamergate thing? Her name sounds familiar.

Pretty sure she’s considered a SJW troll by the SJW community, she’s that extreme/that much of a firebomb thrower.

[Harry Baldman]

The idea of the statement is that sexism, like racism, doesn't just involve a single group being shat on but instead a set of groups that have a very particular kind of relationship. You don't just discriminate against one group but also in favor of another. There's no sexism against men because both men and women are covered by the term "sexism", and people who go on about sexism against men usually do so as a rhetorical whataboutist trick, much like you do in that very post. If you're looking for the specific culturally enforced norms and habits arising from male cultural domination that ultimately motivate men to lead highly dysfunctional emotional and social lives, the more precise term for that would be toxic masculinity. If you're looking for genuine man-hating, that's misandry. Woman-hating, you know that one already.

So calm your tits, bud, the Dark Mother's not gonna cut your nuts off or anything. That's for after the revolution comes.