SaltSong

joined 6 days ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If you can get to the root instance, select "sidebar" then "communities."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 22 hours ago

We have to vote the dinosaurs out of office, if we ever get to vote again.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Hang on, I'm pretty sure that refusing to buy American warplanes is illegal. Unfair, at the very least. Some might call it cheating.

/s because some people's children.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

It's a touchy subject, and I am not great at the human part of conversation. No offence taken.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm not arguing in favor of billionaires. Nowhere in this entire thread, nowhere in this entire site, nowhere I have interacted with anyone over the past 18 months or so, have I suggested that terrorizing president musk is the wrong thing to do.

I just think we should call a spade a spade.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

"Investigate" private companies for what? This sounds like the setup for the Un-White Activities commission.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Do you think the employees of the dealership felt threatened?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You make some good points.

Back in the late 2000 or early 2010, there was a spate of, let's say, aggressive vandalism directed at abortion clinics. I cannot help but think that, even though no person was hurt, that it must have been pretty scary for both the employees, and the patients. But would you argue that it's not terrorism? I'd argue it was. It was a direct effort to use force, I would say violence, in order to cause a political change in practice, if not in fact.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?

No falsehoods like "property damage isn't violence against civilians," when we both know perfectly well it can be.

"False equivalency" seems to be another way of saying that you can't defend your position without illustrating that you define "violence against civilians" based on how much you like the civilians in question.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

No, but if someone did, and could support their case, I'd allow it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Can we not link to reddit's craptastic image containers?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (6 children)

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm trying to get people on my side of the political divide to stop supporting their ideas with falsehoods. That is one way the right wing is able to attract a certain kind of adherent. They just have to point to things like this, where we say, and support, a false idea that we demonstrably don't even believe ourselves.

If our ideas are good, we only need the truth to make them look good.

view more: next ›