They See Your Photos
Senal @ Senal @programming.dev Posts 1Comments 223Joined 2 yr. ago
Senal @ Senal @programming.dev
Posts
1
Comments
223
Joined
2 yr. ago
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
Some A-Train shenanigans afoot
Oh i see where my confusion is coming from, you're the personification of a county.
That is entirely my bad for thinking you were talking about either voting population or actual population, neither of which has a vast majority of anything.
You were just talking about how you and your swing state county personification buddies won out by a narrow margin.
What were there, like 10 of you, 12? i suppose 7 or 8 out of ~12 could be considered a vast change.
You have defeated me sir (or whatever the pronoun for a county is) , with unassailable logic, facts and a true understanding of statistics and the word "vast".
I concede.
Just realised that if you are struggling with "vast" you might not understand what a personification of something is, if so , disregard all of the above it isn't going to make any sense.
Dammit forgot the rating.
Repeating of a factually incorrect statement, self-proclaimed victory over a position not claimed or proven.
1/10 - lacks originality, no personal attacks, no strawmen, no fallacies at all as far as i can tell, not even a single slur.
A single easily provable mis-truth and then a self proclaimed victory over an imaginary battle, what is this amateur hour?
If a gambit doesn't land, you switch tactics or double down, come on now, it's like you aren't even trying.
Moving goalposts again? you've already used that twice, le sigh
"vast majority" and "majority" aren't the same, i specifically called out the vast part...but you do you.
yes, finally an lgbt dig i was losing hope at this point but i get it now, you were keeping it in reserve, i can't wait to see what you do with the immigrants, perhaps even we can hope for some drag queen action?..wait no, don't tell me, i want it to be a surprise.
a bit weak after that though
provable unlikelihood presented as fact x2 , then lie that is easily provable and contradicts your own stance ( and still fundamentally misunderstands the difference between regular and voting population )
You did get the slogan in though so some extra points for that, weird capitalisation, but close enough.
hmm, a tough call this one.....i'll give it a 6/10, a couple new bingo entries but repetition and self contradiction are fairly weak.
Easily provable lie, hope stated as fact, victory claimed on position never stated.
Come on guy it's like you aren't even trying anymore.
Still no immigrants, not even an LGBT ? Really?
lacklustre 2/10 shitpost, must try harder.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-set-office-razor-thin-house-gop-majority/story?id=116274023
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/03/donald-trump-historic-landslide-win-lie
https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/nov/22/how-big-was-donald-trumps-victory-8-charts-provide/
in fairness that last one did use the phrase "vast majority" to describe the number of counties that shifted to red, not the actual number of votes
I know i highlighted the difference between the two statements but i'm not expecting you to understand how statistics works or acknowledge the difference so don't strain yourself.
Moving goalpoats, unrelated, more goalpost moving, claiming victory without any actual rebuttal, semi-truth, hope stated as fact, implication of stance not actually taken.
Hmm, a bit derivative but overall a solid entry, not as good as the last, still no immigrant references, i'll give this a 7/10 shitpost.
Hey, if you want to reinterpret what "vast majority" in the context of a political win means, you do you.
Small bit of relative truth mixed with hypocrisy, dog-whistle, complaint, misunderstanding of word, misunderstanding of concept or voting population.
You hit all the highlights, personally i'd have gone with more dogwhistles, maybe something to do with immigrants ?
A solid 8/10 shitpost.
Vast means large btw, as in big.
"Essential" implies more than just a small part, but if you want to claim otherwise you are free to do so.
Do you also say “no, ALL lives matter?”
Because project management is comparable to civil rights? That's some weak sauce whattaboutism.
Downvotes with no actual reasoning behind them?
I am shocked, shocked i tell you.
Conservative US influencer Candace Owens is barred from New Zealand weeks after a ban from Australia
Jump
So , given that New Zealand and Australia are using their law based framework to deny visa access it's all good right ?
I also noted you conveniently didn't address this in your response.
Yes freedom of speech ends at criminal action or illegal behavior. That is where those boundaries exist. If they do not end at that juncture then where do they end?
I'm not saying that laws aren't useful for this purpose I'm saying that using laws as a baseline without accounting for laws being different in different places is a weak argument foundation, not even mentioning that laws change over time based on unlawful actions being allowed and previously lawful actions now being denied, so not only do you need to account for geographic location you also need to account for time.
As an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67601647
By your proposed framework, you're cool with this because their freedom of speech (or i suppose expression in this instance) is illegal.
To be clear, if you are cool with that, you do you, I'm not your parent, nor am i any moral or ethical authority. I'm using it as an example to gauge how married you are to the idea of laws as absolutes when it comes to freedom.
Conservative US influencer Candace Owens is barred from New Zealand weeks after a ban from Australia
Jump
So your baseline is whether or not something is criminal.
That's easily solved, create laws outlawing the undesirable behaviour, such as the ones in Germany regarding Nazi paraphernalia.
Or the ones defining potentially damaging behaviour as a reason for denying visa access..... give it a sec, I'm sure you'll get it.
Obligatory, countries outside of the US exist and, I imagine rather inconveniently for your argument, have their own laws.
But if your definition of the basis of democracy is freedom of speech except for when there is a law specifically preventing it then you probably have bigger concerns than weak foundations for your arguments.
Shaw explained that the act of asset reuse is essential in stopping crunch
Utter bullshit, you stop crunch with realistic timeframes and competent planning/project management.
Asset reuse could be part of that sure, but making out like it's essential is a geometric fractal of red flags holding other, smaller, red flags.
It's interesting as a subject but I dislike this as a presentation format.
This is the video equivalent of "this meeting could have been an email".
Also his voice and cadence are irritating, but I recognise that that's a personal gripe. Certainly an "old man shouts at cloud" moment but coked up youtuber energy isn't my jam.
As an organisation they have historically been and continue to be, truly shitty.
But what are you using for sources here ?
Sure, as i said, i don't disagree with that.
What does that argument have to do with whether or not people should assigned some responsibility for how they voted (or didn't) ?
Yes everyone understands all that. But are you saying we people that vote blue should keep trying the same failing tactics?
No, but if your tactic changes haven't been implemented by the time voting comes around and the choice remains "nazi's vs not nazi's" then you should be voting "not nazi's".
"The Dems continue to fuck up repeatedly, so i can understand why people chose nazi this time" isn't a tenable argument.
I'm not disagreeing with your disappointment in, well, everything.
I'm disagreeing with this part of your previous reply
Anyone else other than literally Nazie’s (aka Trump, JD, the majority of RNC members and leaders, and some of their voters), shouldn’t be blamed.
If a person understands that the choice is nazi vs not nazi and then actively chooses to not vote, they are tacitly choosing nazi.
"If i vote for the not-nazi's, they won't understand how disappointed in them i am" is not a good argument.
"Their policies don't align with what i want" is not a good argument
"They don't represent my values" is not a good argument
There is no good beginning half to the sentence "< INSERT REASON HERE >, so i tacitly enabled the nazi's"
Except maybe, "I genuinely believe the alternative is worse, so i tacitly enabled the nazi's".
Even then i'd probably disagree, but it would be a substantive argument.
If you don’t have xyz why should I vote for you?
because in an effectively two party system where neither party has xyz you should definitely vote for the party that also aren't nazi's ?
The degree of closeness to your ideal of progressive policies doesn't mean shit when the choice is nazi's vs not nazi's.
Unless you are arguing that those weren't the choices available here ?
There is a privacy setting in firefox that causes this for me on most websites that require photo upload, not all sites, but consistently the same sites.
Ebay for instance, most reverse image searches etc.
in about:config - > privacy.resistFingerprinting
It might not be that setting specifically, but turning that setting to "false" does fix this for me.
There might be a more granular setting that does the same job but i don't know of it.
Not that i'm recommending turning that off, that's your call.
I've also not tried it on this site specifically.