minnow @ minnow @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

170

Joined

2 yr. ago

You're painting a false dichotomy. We can take care of all these domestic issues, and we can give foreign aide. It wouldn't even be hard, it would require a small fraction of the military budget or a slight to most increase of taxes on corporations and the ultra rich.

But some people don't want to give money to poor/starving people, regardless of how much it costs. You could end all foreign aide and all the money would just go... somewhere else that isn't poor people's pockets.

Which was always the intent, more or less. It was just kind of a tradition amongst audio engineers to use it once in every film. It had nothing to do with the studios.

Or, they get more money from Russia.

I mean, racists overwhelmingly also deny anthropogenic climate change. It seems silly to be upset at people who are voting against a candidate you want then to vote against, just because they're not doing it for the reason you want them to.

I wish I had your optimism.

IMO the only thing that would get that country to revolt, to the point of creating real change, is mass starvation.

Read the WPATH Standards of Care. Decisions are made by the child, with the support and approval of the parents and a team of medical and mental health professionals.

If that's the conspiracy theory you want to subscribe to, I can't stop you I guess.

People also forget that Google doesn't give the same results for everyone. Sure you could use incognito mode, but how many people are going to do that when they're looking for normal stuff?

Besides, what better way to say 'I love you' than with the gift of a spatula.

I think you're conflating "gun control" with "taking away all the guns." No reasonable person is advocating for taking away all the guns, so it's not a reasonable assumption that "gun control" equals "take away all the guns."

I think it's worth noting that the primary reason why the ACA left so many people uninsured is because it allowed States to decline the Medicare expansion, and most of the GOP controlled States did. That should never have been possible; single payer/Medicare for all is the only real solution.

Same in Pittsburgh. The DNC backed the incumbent who was so conservative he ran on the Republican ticket when he was successfully primaried off the Democratic ticket by a progressive. The progressive won the general election too, but the DNC sure want happy about it.

I never watched Ghoulies, but I'll never forget walking through the rental store and the box was eye-level with tiny kid me. Scarred me pretty bad. After that I was terrified of flushing the toilet, so toilet lid always had to be down and as soon as I flushed I would run from the bathroom.

Took me probably twenty years to completely get over it.

We need additional regulation about profit margins and executive compensation, or something along those lines, to prevent cost increases from being passed on to the consumer when it could just as easily come out of the profit margin or executive compensation.

It's a good joke, right?

The only alternative is to use the tools we have: let the free market work, but not at the expense of the employees. This means, yes, wage increase will be passed into the customer, who will reduce how much they use the service (decrease demand), which will either drive down supply to justify higher prices or drive down prices to increase demand again. Either option creates opportunities for competitors to enter the market which also drives down prices.

All that said, let me be clear: I prefer option A over option B, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

I think you missed the point where I said "it's not about nuance."

I'm not claiming my examples don't have nuances, I'm claiming that many (most) people have things on which they won't compromise. Standards, if you will. Those standards may have nuance, but they remain uncompromising.

To use your examples, if "not trimming their toenails enough" is a deal breaker for someone, then the nuance of "but they shower ever day" doesn't matter.

Because it's not about nuance. It's about deal breakers.

"Free speech absolutism (but not if you link to my competitor)" isn't free speech absolutism. It's just another hypocrisy to throw on the pile.

Oddly, I thought that was one of the worst parts about Google+. I get your point though and I respect your opinion, I just thought it was interesting how we disagree 😄

You'll notice that on the list of things that are illegal to discriminate against, everything is either an immutable part of the person (national origin, race, gender) or is something that is unethical to ask a person to change about themselves (religion).

Political beliefs are nowhere on the list, because they're not immutable and it's not unethical to ask somebody to change them.

Discriminating against somebody for their political affiliation or political beliefs is legal and, in some cases, moral/ethical.

(As an aside, this is what makes all the people wanting to discriminate against LGBTQ people on religious grounds so egregious; they always had the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people on political grounds, but that wasn't enough for them. They had to do it "in the name of God.")

they aren't

You just haven't seen it yet. Try coming out to them as trans, see how that goes for you.

It's not about nuance. It's about deal breakers. For some people, a deal breaker might be something like poor hygiene. For other people, it might be voting for or otherwise supporting politicians who belong to a party that's actively trying to curtail human rights for anybody who isn't a white cishet man.

That you or anybody else would find the first example acceptable, but not the second, is ridiculous.