Hey you can fuck off.
This person has an older account than you and seems less like a shill from their post history than you. Calling someone’s identity into question because they oppose your political views is also a trash move.
Stop trying to bad jacket people and be normal.
Is it still shit and exploding heads?
this might be the saddest and dumbest thing i’ve ever seen.
there’s immigration. when birthrates are too low they’ll just open up immigration.
even if there wasn’t a simple and straightforward response with historical precedent that hamstrings the sentiment expressed in the op, it’s insanely depressing that anyone would ever think to pen the words “i’ll kill myself to hurt you!” as anything other than the tragic, diseased ravings of a person abused and neglected by everyone around them.
the IDF hit the convoy three times with precision guided munitions over the span a couple of kilometers.
the claim was that they had seen someone who was alleged to be an armed terrorist enter the building hours before the convoy departed from it.
Shot: the plug in hybrids are still lower in tailpipe emissions in concrete terms than than the ice vehicles.
Chaser: the plug in hybrids have real world tailpipe emissions that are almost exactly what the ice vehicles are rated at
Morning after: this study doesn’t include the emissions from production of a new car
*has lost
You can always explain your own reasoning about why a person should vote for people who might be reading.
In that case it wouldn’t.
We’re talking about a post that uses a meme image about the trolley problem to make a statement about the American election.
Part of the whole conceit of that rhetorical structure is that voting works. If I don’t agree with it personally that’s fine, but I didn’t comment in opposition to the premise that voting works, but instead in opposition to the premise that a person who does believe voting works is compelled by any structure, physical or otherwise, to choose between the two worst candidates.
You brought up voting working in reply to me. I’m interested in hearing what you want to build off that. Why not just lay it out?
I personally do not accept your premise that voting works.
but for a person who does, a third party, blank selection or just not engaging with that system are all ways to not be complicit in the actions of candidates.
If you want to talk about the repercussions of someone believing that voting works, I’ll gladly listen to you, but that’s not me and I’m gonna have to deal with it hypothetically.
I reject the premise that voting necessarily works, but even for a person who is operating under the assumption it does, no one is forcing you to choose between the two bad candidates.
There are third parties, a person can leave a position blank, and even if a person believes that voting works, they could still simply choose not to engage with that system and do something else instead.
You literally don’t have to be complicit.
I promise you, I am not missing any other point you have made. my intent with selectively quoting was to go ahead and knock the legs out from under all the other stuff that rests upon those two statements in order to save us the back and forth of big walls of text.
My skepticism absolutely does not imply that nothing is trustworthy when it has to be verified. It explicitly applies to a website (Wikipedia) which maintains an extensive record of ways in which it has been shown to be systematically untrustworthy.
Within the scope of this discussion, it’s not important what sources of information I would consider trustworthy, we’re only talking about Wikipedia, a source that has a long history of being untrustworthy. We are talking about Wikipedia because it is the subject of the ops post which compares it to the library of Alexandria.
you: information on wikipedia shouldn’t be taken at face value… it’s good to not blindly put your trust in whatever you read from it…
also you: I would default to saying trustworthy…
🤔
Woah.
So, like, if you knew of a website which shouldn’t be taken at face value and whose claims had to be verified, what word would you use to describe it? would that word be reliable? Trustworthy?
Not pictured: a giant hand holding the lever flipper in place, forcing their participation and complicity in one major candidates genocidal intentions over another.
There’s always time to walk away from omelas.
That’s wild.
If you knew a person who shouldn’t be taken at face value and whose claims had to be verified, what word would you use to describe them? Would that word be reliable? Trustworthy?
Wikipedia’s reliability in it’s own words - check out the holocaust misinformation from last year!
US congressional staff editing controversies as documented by and presented in wikipedia
A ten year long hoax running until two years ago
Wikipedia’s own list of its controversies - pay special attention here to the 2023 exposure of an administrator pretending to be a spanish folk singer as a sockpuppet of another administrator who was banned in 2015 for making “promotional edits”.
I want to be clear: i do not feel that wikipedia isn’t reliable. I can clearly observe that wikipedia is unreliable.
Wikipedia is not a library neither is it a reliable source of accurate information.
you already have that firewall. it’s your experiences and human connections, your understanding of media, your personal history and learning and the feelings you experience.
you don’t need a firewall to keep you from being manipulated, you need to learn to fucking read and think and feel. to learn and question, to develop trusted friends and family you can talk to.
if it feels like your emotional backdoors are being exploited then maybe youre thinking or behaving like a monster and your mind is revolting against itself.