That's crazy, and now in order to remain competitive and get workers, other businesses will also need to raise their pay. Capitalism.
That's crazy, and now in order to remain competitive and get workers, other businesses will also need to raise their pay. Capitalism.
Because the solutions look different.
Mass shootings weren't even defined before. We didn't talk about them because they weren't tracked. Even now the definition of mass shooting isn't settled, with some definitions having about a dozen per year, and others having about 2 per day.
Other than political gain for one team or the other, what is the argument for expanding the supreme Court?
Stoicism teaches that you should strive for virtue, but cannot expect any particular outcome. You can't have your happiness and contentment depend on factors outside your control, or you will inevitably be unhappy. Try to be virtuous, try to do the right thing for the right reasons, and if the outcomes are not what you hoped for, then at least you tried. Stoic virtues are wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance.
Yes, it's a way to move forward with incomplete knowledge, when you need to make assumptions regardless of which theory you go with. There will always be an asterisk by theories or decisions made with this method, because one of more of the assumptions themselves could later turn out to be incorrect, thereby invalidating your decision. Occams razor is very misunderstood and used or quoted incorrectly all the time.
Gotta go with "skate or die: bad n rad"
Are you being ironic? I actually can't tell on Lemmy.
It might partially solve for it, by reducing severity of these acts, but guns are really just a means to violence. There are plenty of other ways to enact violence if that's what you want to do.
Hah! I remember reddit
Well that depends on the motivation for the bomb threat.
Plus it has a sweet soundtrack
Maybe, but the only reason this is notable is because of an uptick that is from the literal opposite of Christian right wing.
It's very obviously scare mongering propaganda, and it's working exactly as intended.
The only argument for the death penalty was back before long term prisons were available and someone was too dangerous to be released in society. The death penalty should be obsolete.
Most of the time Paradox of intolerance is just an excuse to be a dick to people you disagree with, all while feeling good and justified about it.
Also she was black. For some reason that's important enough to be mentioned several times.
Better than being a bootlicker for one of the parties. If people could acknowledge fault with their side, maybe we could have honest dialogue and discussion instead of drones shouting unintelligible noise back and forth at each other according to the script from their party.
As if people in here aren't "othering" conservatives, severing ties with friends and family and encouraging others to do the same. Creating an other is apolitical, a tool used by Leaders to motivate their base. Landlords, millionaires, cops, managers and so on are favorite "other" groups used by left wing politicians. ACAB, death to landlords, references to guillotines and so on are evidence of this.
I had similar experiences, and couldn't understand why they would discourage dialog and discussion around various issues. The thing is, they don't actually want dialog, they want to stamp out opposition to their views as though it never existed.
You probably commented on one of the verboten subreddits. That's how I got most of my bans.
Centrists exist because they listen to alternative views and can empathize with those views even if they don't quite agree with them or if they can't decide between the pros and cons. But to an extremist on either side, it looks like they are stupid, weak, or possibly just bad people, because if they were smart, Good people, then the centrists would OBVIOUSLY agree with THEM, and then they wouldn't be centrists. This lacking of empathy or inability to understand opposing viewpoints, and therefore assuming malice or evil as the motive of anyone not WITH them, is the hallmark of all extremists.
Oh yeah, also people hate centrists because they come across as smug. Sorry about that.
I guess maybe we are using the terms differently.
After reading your comment I had to fight an almost overwhelming urge to buy a Nazi flag and rent out my house for the simple pleasure of screwing over renters. That's how fast it happens.
It's not a very good litmus test to determine right and wrong because tolerance is subjective based on what you feel to be untouchable, inviolable topics. Those could be religion, gender ideology, sexual preference, free speech, right to bear arms, right to own property, right to bodily autonomy, right to associate, and so on, or some combination of these but likely not all of them. It varies with the individual, though most would agree on some of them. The paradox of intolerance should not be expanded to include too much, because it then becomes simply another tool for rhetoric. In the Bill of rights our constitution does a pretty good job describing which topics are off limits, I think.
That depends if it's your team or not, obviously
No that was the tricolor variation that preceded this final design, and it actually did look like a Somalia flag. I think this one will be pretty well liked by pretty much everyone. The only people who won't like it will instinctively not like it because of the taint of wokeness as a motive to change it. Whatever. But at the end of the day, it was a trash flag and everyone will ultimately agree that it's better now.
My whole point was that the cultural revolution was a disaster because of unchecked progressivism, and that more conservative voices could have averted the disaster. This was in response to an unhinged rant about conservatives being good for nothing and how they should be silenced. Not sure why I engaged in that insane premise to begin with, but anyway that's how we got here.
So let me get this straight, communism failed in China because it was like Trump?
Aldous Huxley described your vision of Utopia in brave new world. I think it's ridiculous, unobtainable, and overall a terrible approach to society. Life is all about lasting and meaningful relationships, so any approach that views these as optional or outdated is broken before it even starts. Your entire premise is flawed from the start.
They just read different propaganda than you do, and the real truth is somewhere between Trump's propaganda and what you are reading.
Mao may not have been progressive, I don't need to argue that point. But he definitely tapped into a progressive spirit driven by progressive youths and the result was a tragedy.
I'm not the guy who tried to claim an insane murderer is somehow representative of an entire political party.
Eradication of the "4 olds" was a deliberate effort by the communist party to destroy old culture, in order to replace it with something new. Since when do conservatives strive to destroy and overturn existing, established culture? That literally the opposite of conservative. Or is your argument that it isn't necessarily conservatives, but it's not progressives either?
Ok you've got to be trolling me. Goodbye.
What part of the Chinese revolution do you feel was done right, what part of it makes you think it's a good idea and that you want to try it in America?
AMERICA BAD GUNS AND HEALTHCARE LMAO GOTTEM
There will always be conservatives since it's a relative term. But I'm guessing that you are referring to the Republican party, of which roughly half of the country belongs to, comprising everything from moderates to extremists, just like the Democrat party has. How can you preach about subverting democracy in the same breath as advocating to silence half of the country? People who cannot coexist with different opinions or world views, who lack empathy and cannot understand nuance, cannot function and don't belong in democracy. Why don't you drop the mask and admit to being an extremist authoritarian? and in that case don't even bother talking about democracy.
Too many people in the world crave an identity that is original enough to be interesting, but not so original that it can't be quantified or defined by accepted or understood identity templates. They need to be able to put a name to their identity so they can talk about it.
I vowed to be done with it when it became subscription based, and now here I am. Kind of glad actually, been looking for an excuse for years as the site became more and more stale, unoriginal, and politics began to overwhelm everything. Maybe this is just how it has to be every decade or so.