Small bit of relative truth mixed with hypocrisy, dog-whistle, complaint, misunderstanding of word, misunderstanding of concept of voting population.
You hit all the highlights, personally i’d have gone with more dogwhistles, maybe something to do with immigrants ?
A solid 8/10 shitpost.
Vast means large btw, as in big.
“Essential” implies more than just a small part, but if you want to claim otherwise you are free to do so.
Do you also say “no, ALL lives matter?”
Because project management is comparable to civil rights? That’s some weak sauce whattaboutism.
Downvotes with no actual reasoning behind them?
I am shocked, shocked i tell you.
So , given that New Zealand and Australia are using their law based framework to deny visa access it’s all good right ?
I also noted you conveniently didn’t address this in your response.
Yes freedom of speech ends at criminal action or illegal behavior. That is where those boundaries exist. If they do not end at that juncture then where do they end?
I’m not saying that laws aren’t useful for this purpose I’m saying that using laws as a baseline without accounting for laws being different in different places is a weak argument foundation, not even mentioning that laws change over time based on unlawful actions being allowed and previously lawful actions now being denied, so not only do you need to account for geographic location you also need to account for time.
As an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67601647
By your proposed framework, you’re cool with this because their freedom of speech (or i suppose expression in this instance) is illegal.
To be clear, if you are cool with that, you do you, I’m not your parent, nor am i any moral or ethical authority. I’m using it as an example to gauge how married you are to the idea of laws as absolutes when it comes to freedom.
So your baseline is whether or not something is criminal.
That’s easily solved, create laws outlawing the undesirable behaviour, such as the ones in Germany regarding Nazi paraphernalia.
Or the ones defining potentially damaging behaviour as a reason for denying visa access… give it a sec, I’m sure you’ll get it.
Obligatory, countries outside of the US exist and, I imagine rather inconveniently for your argument, have their own laws.
But if your definition of the basis of democracy is freedom of speech except for when there is a law specifically preventing it then you probably have bigger concerns than weak foundations for your arguments.
Shaw explained that the act of asset reuse is essential in stopping crunch
Utter bullshit, you stop crunch with realistic timeframes and competent planning/project management.
Asset reuse could be part of that sure, but making out like it’s essential is a geometric fractal of red flags holding other, smaller, red flags.
It’s interesting as a subject but I dislike this as a presentation format.
This is the video equivalent of “this meeting could have been an email”.
Also his voice and cadence are irritating, but I recognise that that’s a personal gripe. Certainly an “old man shouts at cloud” moment but coked up youtuber energy isn’t my jam.
I disagree, the consequences of how people see and interact with you based on that one vote isn’t separate from any other consequences the vote has.
TL;DR;
Hyperbole and “black and white” thinking aren’t a good foundation for claiming moral superiority.
I’m familiar. I don’t know how anyone on Lemmy would not be familiar with it by this point as it’s one of the main go to justifications people use for treating others like shit.
That’s…certainly…one of the takes of all time.
I’m personally astounded you chose that particular quote, but i’ll highlight an important part for you as well.
as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion
I personally wouldn’t attribute “open to rational argument” and “kept in check by public opinion” as hallmarks of a majority of trump voters, but that’s just me.
Daryl Davis, a black musician who managed to turn multiple KKK members by simply engaging with them as human beings.
A good example of a single person making a difference.
I’m genuinely not sure how you think this can be applied at scale, are you expecting all the people who didn’t vote for trump to dedicate their lives to reforming the people actively trying to do horrible things to them.
My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump,
Roughly half of the people who voted, but ok.
it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.
A few things:
“Just decide” implies it was a sudden decision with no lead up, that is incorrect.
Where are you getting the idea that people are expecting trump voters to magically change for the better?
It sounds like you would like them to, which is nice, but that’s a broad generalisation for no citation.
My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump, it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.
That’s an extreme amount of projection.
Broadly claiming that everyone is the maximum amount of intolerant to anyone even slightly of the grouping you’ve specified is disingenuous at best, further claiming they are all doing this to magically change the minds of said group is equally ridiculous.
and further down :
self righteously justify not making any fucking attempt to reach these people and turn them.
If you genuinely think no attempts have been made up to now, I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I’m sure it’s an interesting story.
Self-righteous, like “nobody but me is doing the thing i think is right, in the way that i think is correct” ?
Feels like I’m taking crazy pills.
It feels that way because you’ve set up a catch-all scenario which encompasses your specific perspective and doesn’t allow for perspectives that don’t align.
If you remove the ability to handle nuance from your perspective then any nuance that arises will seem crazy.
Example of nuance.
“A non-trivial portion of this group of people have voted a specific way, with the understanding that doing so will materially endanger people i love, I have a limited amount of energy and I’m choosing not to spend it sorting through who are the ‘saveable’ bigots and instead direct that energy toward protecting my loved ones (and myself) from the consequences of their actions.”
You mean the hat exclusively worn by the character featured in the religious holiday Christmas…i can see why making that connection yourself would be difficult, but hopefully it’s clear now.
True, the difference i suppose is the body count, both location and volume.
Gonna be hard to calculate those numbers though.
I don’t agree with this. Operation warp speed was Trump’s project. When it comes to COVID, I feel like he was pro-vaccine since the beginning. Back then it was also the democrats who were expressing scepticism about the safety of it because they didn’t trust Trump and felt like the vaccine was rushed and not properly tested.
Fair enough, i don’t agree that he was pro-vaccine, rather pro self-interest, but outcome wise i’m not sure it matters.
Assuming his stance wasn’t antivax, it could be argued that he could have done much more with his platform to push for vaccine adoption, given the clear anti-vax stance a large proportion of his base had/has taken, but that’s an entirely different argument.
He has said sceptical things about masks that has caused distrust and conspiracies in the MAGA population. I don’t see the need to defend him on that one.
Its less about you defending him and more about omitting a position that conflicts with the narrative of the reply you provided.
Emphasising the point that correlates with your (in general , not you specifically) narrative and omitting the point that doesn’t, is a common bad faith tactic.
Perhaps that isn’t what you were doing, but it could easily be interpreted that way, and that’s what i think you were asking for when requesting examples.
Sure, but what I mean is that simply being downvoted doesn’t alone mean the information is incorrect and the opposite is true as well.
Sure, but it was written in such a way as to imply that downvote = “people don’t like the truth”.
Which is a classic bad faith stance to take.
That you weren’t actually taking that stance is clear now, but not from the original text ( at least to me )
There’s comments in this tread with false info that’s being upvoted.
Agreed.
At least it wasn’t a Green Hat
Oh it’s definitely a right-wing thing but I wouldn’t exactly blame Trump for all of it. He even got booed at his own rally for telling people to get vaccinated.
In a context where you know this was after a relatively long period of him not doing that.
It’s disingenuous to the point of bad faith to present that as a bolstering remark (with no context until someone called you on it) to reduce accountability.
This reply was also in response to someone using masks and vaccines as conversation points, you responded to this by citing an event out of context and completely ignoring the mention of masks.
Downvotes simply mean people don’t like what I’m saying - not that it’s wrong
Also incorrect, they can dislike what you are saying and it can also be wrong, they aren’t mutually exclusive.
Given the quality of your other responses i’d assume you know this (though i could be incorrect), so presenting it as a fact is either an oversight or intentional.
Santa and Christmas now a days is hardly a religious holiday, and most certainly just a “Consumer” holiday.
For you and me perhaps but there are plenty who at least pretend to appreciate the religious side of it.
How is a Santa hat at all related to any religion?
It literally has “Christ” in the name.
It could be argued that the some of the processes used to decaffeinate the beans can substantially change the flavour profile.
about this specifically:
It’s true that Christians have killed more people and commited more genocides
Than who ? and where is that information coming from ?
Moving goalpoats, unrelated, more goalpost moving, claiming victory without any actual rebuttal, semi-truth, hope stated as fact, implication of stance not actually taken.
Hmm, a bit derivative but overall a solid entry, not as good as the last, still no immigrant references, i’ll give this a 7/10 shitpost.
Hey, if you want to reinterpret what “vast majority” in the context of a political win means, you do you.