Ask Lemmy

I broadly agree with their sentiment but

• I basically agree with this one. I don't agree with climate change being a rapture but I believe this point isn't meant literally.
• The whole point on race is poorly argued. First, the original claim is just a figure of speech it is not meant to be a prescription. Their argument that it's a lie doesn't make any sense since they DO agree that black people have to work harder which is the speakers point. So they are essentially just failing to understand a metaphor. Also it's weird to make a single point that both says "Things are so much harder for black people" and also "this affects all races", they kinda just don't fit together rhetorically even if logically it's consistent. Also "get's us to the starting line" uuuuuuuh we're well past the starting line, racism aside. Racism and other prejudices feel like a consequence of being after the starting line, not before it.
• Idk what to say, success exists. It's possible to be successful even in a "explotative, supremacist, advantage-imbalanced, wealth-dominated system". I see their point about it being a shallow success but they go too far by claiming "there is no point at all". Also contradict themselves by saying there is no point but also you should desire for more. I acknlowedge that life is not fair and your circumstances of birth dictate the majority of your life but I also believe aiming up is really the only rational conclusion. If you don't work towards some definition of success (which can be defined another time) then what's the point of life?
• They don't really refute heaven existing, just assert that hell also does. As a metaphor in isolation it works but when the lead in is "Heaven is a lie", the rebuttle looks more like a literal claim. And gaza isn't literally hell. They reject the claim but the staple heaven & hell onto the real earth and it just doesn't work as an argument IMO.
• I'm not touching that whole "quantum tunneling" thing... Call that one 'the one that doesn't fit' I guess.