BigBenis @ BigBenis @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

445

Joined

2 yr. ago

Thanks for fact-checking me, it's good to know that there are pockets of the world that are trying to do the right thing. And sorry for my pessimism, I live in America.

We're hardly even three months in... We've got a loooong way to go before even the midterms.

Unlike Amazon and all the other giant tech corporations?

The governments you're referring to are socially funded institutions that exist to protect the populace against the exploitations of capitalism. Sadly, they are the exception to many other governments which have let the corruption that capitalism breeds take hold.

I just go directly to the company's website and go from there. Usually it's the same price, on rare occasions it's a few dollars more but to me it's worth it not to do business with Amazon. I've passed up on buying things entirely because they were only available on Amazon.

In fact, over the last couple years I've been transitioning from buying online to buying from small-business brick and mortar stores. Sure it's less convenient but it's also less wasteful, it keeps resources within my local economy and I'm buying a lot less junk that I don't really need.

I remember hearing about basically this literally a decade ago. Nothing's been done about it since then. Nothing will be done about it now. Not unless we make a fuss about it at which point they'll pretend to give a shit about us and make grand gestures towards transitioning away from receipts made from hazardous materials. Meanwhile, they'll continue to knowingly expose us to some other hazardous material for the next decade until some independent research team uncovers how it's slowly poisoning everybody who comes into contact with it. And thus the cycle continues.

Under capitalism, there is no incentive to do anything for the benefit of humankind when it comes into conflict with the ultimate goal of accumulating as much wealth for yourself as humanly possible. It will always corrupt.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that singling out and criticizing the Democrats who betray their party's ideals as well as the party leadership for letting them diminish the party's integrity means I can't also hold members of the Republican party accountable for their actions. Acknowledging that the Republican agenda is to accumulate political power by eroding your rights is not the same as giving them the liberty to do so.

You're making a lot of assumptions seemingly in defence of people who "align" themselves with Democratic ideals while capitulating to and enabling an authoritarian and fascist agenda.

I never said Republicans should get a free pass. As far as I'm concerned, they're beyond the point of redemption and should never be trusted with power again. They've shown that they don't operate in good faith and won't hesitate to sell out the integrity of their values in service to their own personal gain. I can't expect better of them because they're too far gone and there's no amount of moral principal I see left within them. I can count on them to do only one thing and that is to do whatever it takes to accumulate power and control for themselves, no matter who or how many people get hurt along the way.

The Democratic party likes to present themselves as maintaining integrity and ethics in politics and they clutch their pearls when Republicans further erode our democracy and rights. But every time a Democrat is allowed to cross the aisle to enable authoritarianism without public reprimand from party leaders, it shatters that illusion for the entire party and shows there's room in it for anti-Democratic ideals.

I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you but here we are.

I'm not blaming the Democratic leadership on this bill passing. The Republicans have the majority, it's to be expected that their agenda gets passed. What I'm blaming the Democratic leadership for is being consistently incapable of unifying their party in steadfast opposition to the fascist and authoritarian agenda they spent the entirety of the last election cycle insisting would destroy our country as we know it.

That's not to say I don't hold any blame on the Republicans. But what use is expecting better from people who've already sold their souls to an authoritarian demagogue?

If Trump was a Democrat he'd be impeached and convicted by now.

Democratic leadership is a joke. Jefferies and Schumer need to step down. This is pathetic.

Yeah, it makes perfect sense on phones. But for whatever reason the disconnect between the trackpad and laptop screen really screws with my brain. It's like if you tried to drag the scrollbar and it went in the opposite direction you're dragging it.

"Natural scrolling" or whatever it's called with track pads on laptops where the scroll goes the opposite way your fingers are moving. I don't know why that's the default, it makes no sense.

I hope it's not retroactive because I'd probably be fucked by the countless terms and conditions I've mindlessly accepted.

Her parents sound like dick heads. You're 22 and you already run your own successful business? Ignore the elitist dick heads and carry on with what you're doing. It sounds like you're doing great!

Frankly, good riddance.

Me too... I've been using Sync since 2014 and it's sad to see it in this state. I appreciate the developer for what he's done but it just makes no sense to be paying for something that's continuously broken with fixes being irregular and uncertain. I'll be moving on when my annual sub runs out.

I think more often than not people default to monogamy because that is the only moral framework in which our society generally finds intimate relationships acceptable. As a result of monogamy's monopoly on intimate relationship structures, possessiveness and extreme jealousy in response to threats of non-monogamy are normalized and are almost considered a virtue depending on the context.

I think that what you're describing is not conducive to monogamy but rather secure and trusting relationships in general. I think many people tend to assume that quality exists within monogamous relationships whereas they assume non-monogamous relationships to be more frivolous.

Would you expect an unwanted pregnancy to be handled inherently better simply because the relationship of the parents is monogamous. I would think that's entirely up to the strength of the relationship and the maturity and means of the people involved, regardless of orientation.

Similarly with communicable diseases, I don't think non-monogamous people are any less capable of practicing safe sex with people that they trust. Of course, it would make intuitive sense that the more people you're exposed to the higher your chances are of contacting something but in reality there is no significant difference in the rates of contacting a disease between monogamous and non-monogamous people.

I'm not saying monogamy is amoral, only that I argue with the general belief that it is the moral standard for intimate relationships.