Modern_medicine_isnt @ Modern_medicine_isnt @lemmy.world

Posts

22

Comments

1,239

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes, "complicit through complacency" is much better. I thought there were lots of single words that fit too. But I struggled to find any that didn't imply active assistance.

I do what I can. But it doesn't feel like enough. At the same time, most of it feels ineffective. In my case I have to weigh the saftey of my family against my ideology. It's not fair to my kids to go and get myself locked up or worse.

Very right wing of you to have no sympathy for people born less intelligent than you. Fools should not be blamed. A system that allows fools to be swayed and to be the deciding factor is where the blame should go.

Lawyers and law firms lean very very heavily on relationships. Far too much honestly. Who your lawyer knows really shouldn't matter when it comes to legel matters, but often it means more than the law. So being in the sights of the leader of the republican party really reduces the image of a lawyer with connections. Thus it is very very bad for business.

What that sounds like is that you are okay with collateral damage. But where does that stop? Are you ok with the killing of thier spouse because they chose to marry someone who became a cop? What about thier kids? Cousins? Neighbors? People who live in the same apartment complex? Where do you draw the line? And why?

Blame is usually reserved for those actively contributing to the problem. There are several words for not doing anything to solve a problem, but blame doesn't really fit. And how would you know if I was or was not actively doing something. That's kind of my point. If you blame someone for something just by association, and don't even try to find out if they are trying to solve the problem... I am not in favor of that. Afterall, a person can't actively work to solve every problem that people who they are associated with cause. So you would be to blame for the mexican drug cartels killing people because you aren't actively working to solve that problem, but people from your country surely do drugs which is why the cartels exist and kill people.

I dunno. I'm American, and I sure don't want the world blaming me for what trump is doing. But I do share your frustration in general.

I don't really recall anything about two sides. I saw an additional complaint that the new left out context, like they always do, in order to get more clicks.

As a father, I can understand his reaction as recorded. He is defending his kid from essential an adult attack. Sounds like he saw her chasing his kid. Had she discussed it politely, he very likely would have been focused on the misbehavior of his own child. No guarantees of course. But the kids are 5. He may have been looking to start a game of chase with the other kid or something. They just don't know how things are done, and they have to learn. Reacting with racial slurs to normal 5 year old behavior just totaly destroys the chance for learning.

I would love to discuss with some of the downvoters why they disliked your statement.

You hit the nail on the head. A polarized populace is easier to extract money from. The proof is in how much money poor trump supporters are willing to give to a "billionaire". There is a whole economy around a polarized populace. News, poloticians, "influencers", and various businesses like truth social that caters only to a polorized populace. In the end, this is all about money. As it always is.

I see plenty of reports about the protests. They just aren't on fox news, which is fine. People watching that are a lost cause anyway.

I do grow weary of "news" picking and choosing which facts to present so that they can make a story that gets more clicks.

Talk to the childs parent. Be polite, the more polite, the more embarrassed the parent will be. Then the child will learn a lesson from thier parent.

They kinda are. Do you think every single colonist was out in the streets rebelling? No it was a percent. And there is a healyhy percent protesting right now. The revelution also didn't happen overnight. It took time to build momentum.

Same ages in the US. But not much maturing in HS.

My understanding is that the washington law has an exemption for troops activated by the president or something. So it is mostly toothless. But it is symbolic. And in this case that is worth something.

I was thinking high school locker room when I read it. Cause it fit my experience there.

When you are done on your soapbox, maybe talk about what can be done instead of who you blame.

I duuno. Washington passed that bill making it illegal for troops ftom other states to enter washington. The intent there is pretty clear. Noone got arrested.

And it isn't about the reality of the number of guns. It's about the news that the state did the thing. Maybe it only results in 5 more guns being bought. But if the perception is that the civilians are armed and intend to defend, that acts as the deterrent.

Mid term elections. Other poloticians need to distance themselves from him if they want to win. So it leads to less radical republicans in those seats. And thus republican congress people who are more likely to vote to remove him from office, or even just to pass laws to restrict what he can do.