That does come with the unavoidable side effect that the majority of the people will simply not participate. It then follows that sites like Reddit will continue to be the place where the majority of the people will go.
If your goal is to participate in small communities and you are okay with the slow pace of those communities, then that’s fine. If your goal is to move people away from corporate-sponsored media for whatever reason, then this won’t work.
And can be properly gutted and de-veined.
I believe the intent is to use appdata for user-specific configs and programdata for system-wide configs.
My response would be that if you cannot explain your position, then you cannot defend it, and therefore you do not understand it yourself. This implies that you are simply feeling you way into your position using gut instincts, which are easily created and manipulated without a reasonably sound argument. An ad on TV, a op-ed piece only half heard, a slew of biased headlines, and more all contribute to these gut feelings without providing a rational base.
In short, I reject your claim that complicated positions cannot be explained. Yes, many can’t be easily explained, but you should still be able to explain and defend them.
So when the position is challenged and you can’t defend it because you have only these gut feelings at the core, you fall back on the belief that anyone would have the same feelings eventually. This is, of course, not true.
I hate that phrase so much.
It sole purpose is to belittle and dismiss the person you are talking to.
It tells the person that they are obviously unable to understand because of some unrelated trait. It’s an ad-hominim that just shuts down the conversation.
It’s only used by people that cannot actually defend their position, but rather than continue to discuss it, they would rather just shut out the other person.
It’s them telling the other person “you are less than me which is why you are wrong, and you must simply accept that because you cannot possibly understand how I am right.”
Not standing up to worse makes it more difficult to move away from less bad because now you have to deal with worse before to can get back to dealing with less bad.
OP: posts example of Republicans taking credit for things they opposed
ITT: “Roads are bad!”
Kinda missing the point, here.
This is why you can never disprove creationism sufficiently to convince a young Earth creationist. The hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
It also has built-in Facebook Container to isolate Facebook links.
https://newrepublic.com/post/187332/trump-biden-tough-netanyahu
When Trump says that Biden should not be holding Netanyahu back (regardless of whether or not he is) and that Netanyahu is doing a good job, then it can’t be much more clear that Trump is going to enable even more.
You know, at first I was thinking that this is a really bad take. But then I realized something: this is a classic trolley problem.
Sparing the details because you probably already know them, it comes down to a choice: you can do nothing and five people will die, or you can actively perform an action and only one person will die. The only choice you have is to do nothing or do something.
So the problem becomes: which is the morally correct choice? On one hand, does doing nothing absolve you of the five deaths you could have avoided? On the other, does actively participating make you responsible for the one death even if it was to save five?
Back in the real world, you have the same choice. Since voting for a third party that has no chance of winning is functionally equivalent to not voting, it plays out the same way. You can do nothing and the genocide gets worse, or you can actively participate and try to reduce the damage. Which is the moral choice? Which will help you sleep at night?
That is a question philosophers have struggled with for centuries, and there’s no good answer. From my personal perspective, doing nothing IS a choice, so no matter what I do I’m still an active participant. Therefore I will choose to minimize the damage.
Yes, it’s bullshit that the current administration hasn’t takes a tougher stance on the conflict. But it will be worse under Trump, as demonstrated by both his words and his actions when he was last in office. So the question is: which will help you sleep at night: doing nothing and telling yourself that you are not responsible when Trump wins, or doing something even though you know it won’t be enough?
As powerless members of the masses, it’s the best we can do.
Both the student loans and the ACA were actively gutted by Republicans, so they are a perfect example of why getting Republicans out is beneficial to you. You want student loan forgiveness? Get rid of the Republicans that are blocking it. You want single-payer or socialized medicine? Get rid of the Republicans that are blocking it. Both have been introduced by Democrats, both were voted on along party lines and failed due to Republicans.
You are missing my point: you are only hurting yourself and your goals with that strategy. Voting third party only helps Republicans and isn’t seen as any kind of protest by anyone who matters. No one says you have to LIKE voting for either of the parties, but only one party is closer to your goals, is actively trying to achieve your goals, and has a chance of actually getting elected so your goals can be achieved.
Why engage with people you don’t agree with? Because they will get you closer to what you want. What you want is voting reform, so vote for the people who are pushing for voter reform:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3313/text
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/5048
And not just federally, but locally as well:
https://fairvote.org/ranked-choice-voting-legislation/
It’s no coincidence that these bills are being introduced by Democrats. If you want these bills passed, they also need support to get them passed. As long as the house and senate are split between the Democrats and Republicans, these bills will not get passed. Simple as.
I’m not saying that voting Democrat will make them reverse course. I’m saying that voting Democrat so they have enough control to get these bills passed will let them complete the course they are already on so that you can get what you want.
And what happens in the mean time? Third parties almost always take votes from the Democrats. (That is to say, most of the people who vote third party would have voted Democrat if the third party was not on the ballot.) This gives a huge advantage to the Republican party on close elections. The result is further entrenching of the party that has the larger vested interest in not reforming the system. As a result, any generational movement has no chance of succeeding because the party that directly opposes their goal is always in power.
(To expand: since Democrats lose votes to third parties, they are the ones who would greatly benefit from any kind of ranked choice voting, so they tend to support such reforms. Since Republicans benefit more from FPTP, they tend to oppose such reforms.)
It’s all well and good to send a message, but that message will be received by the people who benefit most by ignoring that message.
The better method is to get people in power now who support election reform, get those reforms passed, then third party candidates become viable.
We used to have them until several years ago they were deliberately removed. Their roots were destroying the roads and sidewalks, as well as infiltrating the underground infrastructure.
The metrics are the only important part! How else are we supposed to know how good the line is unless we constantly stress test the line by collecting data? Your ability to use the line is not a useful metric, so we don’t worry about that.
We know when you lie. We can see uptime stats.
And now you compare the Republicans to some natural force, as if they are inevitable and inescapable. Gravity has no will, no plan. It just is. Republicans have a will and a plan. Getting mad at the Democrats for not being good enough to stop that is akin to victim blaming. The Republicans should never have gone down this road in the first place.
Do you blame the thief, or do you blame the homeowner for not having better locks? Who do you hold accountable?
deleted by creator