HACKthePRISONS @ bigMouthCommie @kolektiva.social

you should know i am earnest. i'm learning how to snark. i try to say what

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

1,653

Joined

5 yr. ago

only a vote for a candidate helps that candidate

Yep.

he has not made any progress toward that, nor has he even stated it as a goal.

so you're not going to vote for him, are you?

negotiate. i called my last carrier from my new carriers retail store front. they practically begged me to stay and said they'd give me everything i asked for.

not to be a shill, but i have xfinity mobile, and they gave me unlimited tethering. there is service degradation at some point, but i haven't ever hit it or if i have i haven't noticed it.

Would you find it acceptable if Biden negotiated a deal where the Palestinian genocide would stop if half of Gaza fell under Israel’s total control?

gaza is under israels total control and has been for decades. and of course i want the dissolution of israel, just as i want the dissolution of russia, ukraine, the usa, britain, china, etc.

i want a world where everyone is equal and everyone is free.

Anything short of Russia’s total retreat is unacceptable

if it were up to me there would be no russia

she might. i don't honestly know.

is that your standard for biden, too?

no, i didn't. biden won in 2020 and i voted for howie. am i allowed to take credit for that? it makes no sense.

voting for bad people is bad. it's not that I'm letting perfect be the enemy of the good. im letting good be the enemy of bad.

it's the right thing to do. ends don't justify means.

of course i care who wins. i want my candidate to win. that's why i vote for them.

it's not the same result. in one scenario, the vote total doesn't change. in the other, a candidate gets one more vote.

the difference is that voting "whatever" is the same as not voting. by contrast, voting for a candidate is voting... for that candidate.

the uncertainty shifts within the framework from whether my actions will have a good out come to whether i know what actions are moral. i suppose it's possible that i might not know, but the categorical imperative is pretty easy to apply, so my confidence is much higher than i imagine is possible for any action within a utilitarian frame: you are totally dependent on unknowable circumstances to determine the morality of past actions.

no, but that's not what i said, either.

this is straight up election misinformation. a vote for any candidate may only be voted for that candidate, and it can't be discarded.

Suggesting that the colonists stop fighting and do whatever the colonizers want

no one said that

The Wikipedia article on supply and demand has a great section at the bottom about objections to the theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplyanddemand#Criticism

here's an unpopular opinion in basically every circle: supply and demand is a meaningless tautology in its only "useful" form.

it is a post-hoc explanation for price discovery, but it lacks all predictive value. as scientific theories go, it's widely debunked and discredited, and lacks all predictive value. i would go so far as to say there is no economic theory that is more than post-hoc explanation and, so economic theory is indistinguishable from storytelling.

i agree with the thrust of the position that landlords are leeches. i would never try to use an quantifying economic theory to justify that.

i love that you shared that thread. anyone can see she opposes war and genocide just by reading your link.