Stoneykins [any]

It never reffered to a gate, that didn’t exist at the same time. But camels do supposedly fit through said gate, if they get on their knees.

Of course all bullshit to help rich people feel like being wealthy wasn’t a sin if they were “humble” about it.

I feel like the incomplete explanation should have been more than you expected in the first place

It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.

Solution is simple, community should turn any suspiciously product focused thread into an advertisers nightmare of filth

Then the ads will just be the ones with the comment sections turned off

You and people who hold beliefs like yours should just pick a new name for yourselves, I’ve tried to convince family members of this for years. Let the jerks have the name they tainted, pick a better name for your beliefs, and get out of the way for people to condemn the institution of Christianity for it’s actions.

You shouldn’t feel responsible for them. You should just let them suffer the consequences of their actions and get outta the way.

Well if there is no practical point in our communicating, with our senses of morality being so alien to each other, could you at least avoid doing it anyways for the sake of being so insulting to me?

I don’t need that condescension, thanks, I’m all topped up.

Not to be rude but this is an oversimplified and incorrect view of voting and is the exact kind of mindset I am against.

If you try to insist non-voting is somehow support for a specific candidate, what does that say about people who can’t vote for personal/health reasons? If someone working poverty wages, unable to get the day off to vote, can’t get their vote counted, are they somehow a bad person?

Additionally, although less significant, I can’t consider it morally wrong, ever, to vote third party. Strategically wrong, sure, it often is, but the point of a vote is to choose, and I can’t blame someone for using their right to choose to be an idealist rather than a strategist. And honestly, in an election like this with so much frustration towards the major parties, 3rd party has a better chance of winning than usual… although I’m sure that is a stressful and unpleasant thing to hear if you dislike third parties.

That’s the basis of what the spoiler effect is and why it’s a problem to consider, yeah.

I just think it is better to be clear about how it works and what it means. Non-voting and third party votes being described as explicit support for trump has some troubling implications.

I just want to point out a thing said in this, that I have seen said hundreds of other times, which is not correct.

Due to the spoiler effect, a leftist vote for a third party candidate is essentially a vote for trump

This is incorrect, most charitably interpreted as an exaggeration, but it is said so often I think people are misunderstanding the spoiler effect.

The spoiler effect is real and it can suppress a victory of not-as-bad candidates if they have a popular opposition, but it is never as bad as “essentially voting for trump”. It is equivalent to not voting at all, at worst.

And it is also a simplification of the situation to imply that the spoiler effect only affects democrats. There is a similar thing going on with conservative third parties.

I feel like if it really mapped so cleanly onto the trolley problem, there wouldn’t need to be 4 paragraphs of text included throughout the meme in an attempt to head off any arguments…

We may never have a good answer for why the gay nerdy communists love the colorful scifi communist space adventures

I remember so many nuclear stans on lemmy a bit ago refusing to acknowledge that renewables are getting so good and cheap that they are more important to solving climate change than nuclear. I wonder how they feel seeing investors pull out in favor of renewables?

I think you kinda missed my point. Sure, socialists and communists don’t like tankies, but conservatives think the socialists and communists who don’t like tankies are tankies. They aren’t “unified against tankies”, they don’t agree who, what, and where “tankies” are.

These threads are odd to me, considering how many people call all communists tankies. The word seems to be used by anarchists, conservatives, communists, anti-communists, and more, and every person has a slightly different definition.

Half the people here could consider the other half to be the tankies everyone is mad at.

To be clear this isn’t me saying “be nice to the tankies” this is me saying “the overuse of this word is confusing the shit out of me.”

Car dealerships. They are awful on purpose. In many places car manufacturers are not legally allowed to sell their cars directly to customers, in order to create what is essentially legally mandated car dealerships, which all suck.