Welp. Lol and I normally catch those too. The good ones are the ones that usually getcha
Welp. Lol and I normally catch those too. The good ones are the ones that usually getcha
If only you could like…ask? But I guess that’s the crux of the issue.
Do people you meet introduce themselves to you as Mrs/Ms X? Maybe if you work exclusively in/around schools…
This also ignores that shouting at someone in no way infringes on their ability to speak. It’s just something they don’t like to happen. Ironically, much like women going to abortion clinics and getting shouted down and harassed, simply based on their religious belief that abortion is wrong. But whew, let’s not apply logic to their beliefs…
Are you looking for an answer to a question, or are you looking for a debate?
At any rate, reducing the utility of an item to what it’s “lowest performance” should be to lower it’s ability to harm for non-intended uses is asinine. Who sets the limits? Does a knife need to be razor sharp? I can cut a lot of things with a dull knife and some time. It would pose less danger to you if all knives I had access to were purposefully dull. To prevent me from procuring an overly sharp knife, make the material strong enough to cut foods, but brittle enough to not be one overly sharp. Knives, after all, we’re made to stab, cut, and dissect a wide arrange of materials, flesh included. This specific design poses limitless danger to you, and needs to be considered when manufacturing these tools.
Guns are not majorly sold specifically to kill people, in the grand scheme of things. Hunting is probably the largest vector of volume gun sales in the US. How do you design a weapon that can be useful for hunting, but ineffective at killing a human? They all possess the innate ability to do so, but so does even the smallest pocket knife or kitchen knife.
I’m also a big gun control advocate, so I’m not defending anything I like. The failings of US gun control are squarely on the idea that everyone should possess a gun until they prove they shouldnt; it’s reactive policy. Active gun control would limit who can possess a gun from the start to those that will only use it for “appropriate” reasons.
Yep, own a manual, driven manuals prior, and learned when I was young (conceptually at least, I grew up racing motorcycles, and the idea of clutch+shifting became a thing when I was about 8). Never formally was “taught” in a car, just got in and started driving one. Am 32 in Appalachia.
They’re building up to a killer golden age
This is a tactical retreat. Once the retreat is done, you’ll see that while Russia has given up physical land, they’ll have taken digital ownership of it via the smash-hit mobile game Atlas Earth, meaning Ukraine occupies the space, but Russia earns passive income from digital ownership.
Checkmate you dirty capitalist.
That isn’t federated experience tho. No one on a closed platform asks for identification of where stuff was posted from; by default, it’s the closed platform. That isn’t how federation works; the number of sources/groups is virtually endless.
But nah, go on. Foster more good-will by getting upset at others for asking the context of a post on federated sites. Clearly y’all are a welcoming bunch.
It’s the landing page of Kbin by default. I cannot change it.
I don’t think I’ve even advocated for the person to specifically include the instances in post titles; just that identifying it is helpful when asked. Instead, dude above went off calling people functionally dumb for asking.
I didn’t set out to view other instances. The default view of kbin is the All page. It was on page 1, immediately join opening. Should I avoid logging in?
It’s crazy how annoyed you are about the federated experience while on a federated site. Not everyone is going to conform to how you/your instance wants to operate.
I’m seeing this from just the All page on kbin. That’s where I find other communities I may want to join.
I have not left my instance to see this post.
The continued narrative of “both sides are the same” is astounding to me.
Absolutely, both sides how to corporate interests, trend towards war-hawking when needed. But one side is trying to expand abortion and trans Healthcare, keep gay marriage legal, keep public education accessible and sufficient(ish), change Healthcare from private profit-hungry companies, and keep voting rights for all.
They are very much not the same. One is the baseline for what should be expected at minimum, and the other is about 30 ft below that line, screaming about library books and arguing some parents don’t have a say in their child’s Healthcare…
I’ll fight em. Despite being in WV, there aren’t too many confrontational people here. And I’m in arguably the most liberal part, so I’m decently insulated from the crazies. People always say “liberals don’t have guns”, but it’s more “liberals don’t cosplay with their guns when they go to the store”…
The problem is, not doing so is tantamount to treason to them. The election was stolen, this isn’t the USA anymore. This is some deep state globalist conspiracy. They’re so far gone that the only path forward is to threaten war and physical harm to others.
Imagine. Some deep state conspiracy and the best person they could put in power was Joe fuckin Biden…lmao
You’re not wrong, I think I had some misconstruing of the point of his statements.
I think the apathy has started popping up because the onus is being placed on the individual at multiple levels. It’s on me to change my habits to the level of environmental conscientiousness which I’m trying to reach; LEDs, efficient appliances, electric vehicle (arguable at this point), recycling efforts across many spectrums, supporting public policy that encourages green practices, etc. But even as a population, that doesn’t effect much change when considering corporate practices. Surface level changes to some operations to take advantage of rebates or subsidies, but only so far as it’s deemed profitable. Manufacturing and material acquisition still being “dirty”, use of international labor to sidestep stricter policies, general obfuscation tactics, lobbyists and generally vast amounts of money actively seeking to stop or reverse policies.
I as an individual can enact much change in my life and those around me. But it falls well short of what a single company could do if they really wanted to take the leap.
I could also just have a narrow-sighted perspective on the situation, but that’s largely where I fall currently. The focus on individual efforts vs societal (largely meaning the tools at my disposal beyond what I can provide myself) leaves much to be desired.
I can agree with that
I have no desire to continue trying to win over those people. There are absolutely still people to discuss these matters with. But we can’t abide by the lowest common denominator.
I disagree. I recently saw a video of someone saying “if the Bible said 1+1 is 3, I’d be finding ways to make the math work so that 1+1=3.” How is anyone supposed to have discussions with someone who’s views subsist in that mindset?
There are absolutely unwinnable people, to me. Additionally, they may be winnable, but we’re on a clock, and we can’t wait until it’s done to decide to leave them behind.
I do agree that there are factors larger than them causing the issue, and that needs dealt with as well.
The one that confirms their suspicions, obviously. Every viewpoint is being peddled, so every viewpoint is equally as legitimate. You just have to scroll far enough to find it.
Not that it absolves anyone from idiocy of their own making, but you have Israel’s own people admitting to wanting to commit, and subsequently committing, these acts, and people will still look you square in the face and say “HaMaS dId It”. Can’t help those that don’t want help, I guess.