Earthwormjim91 @ Earthwormjim91 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

612

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ok so if your choice was between a politician who made LGBT issues their priority but were against medicare for all/socialized medicine, and a politician that made medicare for all/socialized medicine their priority but were against LGBT rights, who would you choose?

Both are human rights issues. Which one is more important to you?

It just seems like you’re saying “political issue” but what you mean is “doesn’t affect them”.

Yeah, that is exactly what I said and what I meant. It was my point. Thank you for getting the point?

At some point it’s a forced choice, and sitting out isn’t really an option.

Idk, the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans exist kinda proves that it is. Even LGBT people can reconcile Republican ideals and their own LGBT identity. It's much easier for someone that isn't LGBT to ignore LGBT issues. And the majority of people wont have someone close to them be LGBT, making it even easier to not care about them.

Many many people believe that healthcare is a basic human right, right up there with LGBT issues.

Putting Medicare for all on the same footing or higher than LGBT issues, because healthcare affects literally everyone.

They’re a Republican. They don’t view LGBT issues as a human rights issue in the first place. It’s a political issue for them. Hence why they can reconcile that their opinion vs the party platform.

Again, that’s why they said they’re not anti-lgbt rather than saying they’re pro-lgbt.

They can disagree with the Republican Party on LGBT issues, because it’s a political issue for them and not a human rights issue.

You know that someone can agree with most things in a platform and hate other things about it right?

The fact that they said they’re not anti-lgbt instead of saying they’re pro-lgbt implies that lgbt issues in general are lower on their list of priorities. They may not agree with the anti lgbt stuff but it isn’t important to them anyway.

Yeah grocery store turkeys are the blandest factory farmed things on earth lol. There’s a reason why you can get them on sale for like 80¢/lb.

Depends on how you season the peanut butter. Store bought peanut butter is often chock full of sugar to make it sweet.

A plain peanut butter with just salt and peanuts goes extremely well with savory. Like on a burger.

A beef bacon cheeseburger with something like havarti, with peanut butter on it is delicious.

And a lamb burger with feta and hummus goes really well together.

Uh yeah. Like literally all of human history, from the beginning of civilization and will likely last until our extinction.

The parent comment was about the current system, where labor produces everything. If your labor can be easily replaced, your labor isn’t that valuable and you won’t be compensated well for your labor. If your labor can’t be replaced easily, it is valuable and you will be compensated well.

That’s pretty much the opposite of this fictional future dystopia where there is no labor at all and everything is produced by automation. In that world, you as an individual have no value at all. You’re just a leech. There won’t be any innovation, because that’s driven by labor which doesn’t exist in this scenario.

Maybe have a skill worth something then? Wild concept.

The overlap between the kind of people wanting to do 0 work and the kind of people willing to actually physically fight for it is virtually nonexistent.

Who is going to enforce communal ownership of the means of production and all products in the economy when those in charge decide they should reap the benefits of managing that? It certainly isn’t going to be the lazy asses who don’t even want to work literally one day a week.

Sure. Give the wealthy and powerful ownership over literally everything in the world and as long as you follow the rules you can get your survival allowance. Shit maybe even some entertainment if you’re really good.

Dumbest fucking take I have ever heard.

Because they decided to name things -ium to sound alike later down the road, even if it’s etymologically incorrect.

If we used the original etymologically correct names for elements we would also say plumbum, ferrum, argentum, aurum, cuprum, stannum, and hydrargyrum for lead, iron, silver, gold, copper, tin, and mercury respectively. Which is why their element symbols are Pb, Fe, Ag, Au, Cu, Sn, and Hg.

They have historically said aluminum in Canada too…

It’s not an American term. It’s literally what the British discoverer of the metal named it (after originally naming it Alumium), both because it resembled platinum as well as wanting to associate it with the more prestigious metal.

Aluminium is actually the “incorrect” way of spelling it anyway because it comes from the second neuter declination from Latin where -um is the correct way. Which is why you have plumbum (lead, Pb), argentum (silver, Ag), aurum (gold, Au), ferrum (iron, Fe), hydrargyrum (mercury, Hg), copper (cuprum, Cu), stannum (tin, Sn), molybdenum, lanthanum, and tantalum. Arsenic was originally arsenicum as well.

The second neuter declension from Greek is where you get -on elements like the noble gasses. Neon, krypton, argon, xenon, radon. And then helium, which by its Greek etymology should be helion instead of helium. Also Silicon, carbon, boron, and oganesson.

Oganesson by the IUPAC rules should actually be Oganessium, because the naming rules required all new elements to end in -ium regardless of properties. They ended up naming it oganesson because it falls in the noble gas group, even though it’s predicted to be a metallic solid at room temp and not a gas at all.

Ok, Venmo me $1,000 and I’ll give you the deed to the Golden Gate Bridge. I actually own it. I give you my word.

And you have to take me at my word because you said you do.

The green party is routinely funded by the GOP. Their existence is to be a spoiler and pull votes from Dems to swing races towards republicans.

They’re already doing what they’re being paid to do.

Oh you thought I meant that literally…

Yikes. lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/us/politics/green-party-republicans-hawkins.html

https://apnews.com/general-news-65e9d5d001dfd10c86ca9ab37e53e159

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/14/green-party-lawyers-have-ties-gop-counties-association/5791100002/

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2010/06/24/gop-linked-firm-paid-532000-for-greens-petition-drive-files-say/?outputType=amp

https://www.ktvh.com/news/montana-news/pac-promoting-green-party-candidate-has-gop-ties

https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania-election-green-party-billy-lanzilotti-philly-republicans-20220826.html?outputType=amp

Yes. Yes it does lol. The GOP routinely bankrolls the Green Party to try to prevent Dem wins in close races. It’s basically the only purpose of existence for them today.

I mean, GREEN does stand for Getting Republicans Elected Every November.

And that has to do with being able to sideload how, exactly?