If they are needs, then none can be compromised.
A person should always aim for harm reduction. If an unwinnable situation were to arise, harm reduction statistically would favor the many for most scenarios. From a causal perspective, sad as it is to say, the casualties were not going to live past the situation; from this cold but pragmatic perspective, even something as invaluable as a person’s life is unfortunately not “needed” per se.
assuming that others view you as competent
That part does not apply, and I understand it to be part of the definition of Imposter Syndrome.
I’m in disbelief that someone with as much character as Jake Paul would be fraternizing with a miscreant such as that
Is it ok to deport the people who baselessly deport other people?
🎶 I’ll see you on the dark side of the Sun🎶
It is partially stemming from a capitalistic source.
Long personal vent linked here, feel free to ignore if you don’t care. Basically unless you’re a free therapist, you don’t have to read this.
“Nanook” is a slur for northern indigenous people in the same way “Chan” is a slur for Chinese people. Sure, there might be some members of that demographic with that name, but using the term as a generalization for that demographic is derogatory in intent.
Using the term “Eskimo” in the instance name is problematic for at least two reasons.
The term itself is considered problematic and derogatory for reasons I don't have time to go into here, but feel free to research why it’s under fire.
I haven’t checked, but the admins are probably not part of the demographics that the term would refer to, so they’re not “reclaiming a slur” so to speak
Your username is a racial slur and your host instance’s name contains a racial pejorative. What other varieties of bigotry do you partake in?
“Yes, the only social media I have is TruthSocial. All other platforms are too woke”
Not the hero we deserve, but the hero we need
My dogma defines my in-group, and my in-group can’t be wrong because then that would mean that I am wrong, which I categorically can’t be. Therefore, your science and logic and proof must be wrong if it contradicts my dogma.