> They could be spending eight hours a day in the Kindle app reading classics
Have you been around kids recently? I think we all know what they're doing on the phone, and it's not The Great Gatsby.
4,789 karma · joined July 7, 2014
Have you been around kids recently? I think we all know what they're doing on the phone, and it's not The Great Gatsby.
You've misunderstood the purpose.
Fiction was not ever intended to achieve scientific goals, i.e. to discover the truth about our universe. It's intended to be thought-provoking, i.e. to inspire questions about our universe.
You need the question before you can find the answer.
So you don't support Trump, who has tried to overturn the 2020 election results?
You don't support Reform UK, who have expressed an interest in bypassing democratic results in order to enact their agenda?
You don't support AfD who have explicitly embraced anti-democratic measures and Nazi-style politics?
> Supporting democracy != supporting far-right parties
So, to be clear: do you or do you not support Trump, Reform UK, and AfD?
> fascistic moves like banning opposition parties
You should address the other commenter's question: why do you think German law outlaws anti-democratic parties? Can you think of any reason?
> Every accusation is a confession.
lol
1. It is owned by the public. The public has a right to know how its tax dollars are being spent.
2. Certainly there is no expectations of privacy in a jail cell, as the jail administrators and guards can enter at any time.
Can you explain this further?
A person who can legally vote today, but in the future cannot vote because of election restrictions, will be disenfranchised. You are supporting election restrictions that disenfranchise 10% of the US population.
>>That's why 10% of the US population doesn't have form of ID that could be used to vote
>Correlation != causation
I never made a claim of causation. I just said that 10% of legal US voting-eligible citizens don't have ID and will therefore be disenfranchised by your proposal.
> They are issued automatically after proving eligibility.
That's not what "automatic" means.
That's not what I said. You are criticizing the left for disliking election results; meanwhile, you are supporting groups that aim to overturn election results. That's the irony.
The incongruity arises from the contradiction in your opinions. One would expect a reasonable person to either support democracy in all cases, or oppose it. You, however, support democracy when it suits your partisan ends and oppose it when it doesn't. That's both hypocritical and ironic.
Okay. Hypocrisy: behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
You claim to be opposed to authoritarianism but you actually support authoritarian right-wing groups.
Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
See exhibit: Trump
They legally won a plurality in the Bundestag, which is sufficient for Hitler to be legally appointed chancellor, which made everything that follows legal. Like it or not, the Nazi regime was a legal result of democracy. Democracy, neither then nor now, requires an absolute majority, which is why so many European governments are formed as coalitions.
AfD did not win a majority in Saxony-Anhalt either. Nevertheless, a person can justifiably feel disappointed by the democratic outcome, both then and now, without being dismissive of democracy itself.
> You're following me around in the comments
I am doing my part to eliminate misinformation and stupidity in the world. You're welcome.
> The point was you thought IDs for voting were not free
I guess you choose to dwell on this particular issue because it makes you feel better, but actually we're talking about Republican rules to restrict voting. The availability of ID is an issue in that discussion. Any friction involved in getting an ID, including but not limited to paying for it, will limited voting in practice.
> Proving you're eligibility to vote is not disenfranchisement.
Disenfranchisement is causing eligible voters to not be able to vote. Which is what happens when add requirements that people don't fulfill.
> Stop projecting about being confused. Everyone can see where you poorly attempted to support your objectively false points.
Oh okay.
You are aware that it is a cornerstone of antisemitic thought to consider Jewish people to be not white?
Can you please tell us about your first-hand experience with AfD supporters?
> The most openly antisemitic groups in Germany are leftists, so, I don't want to ask them about their awful opinions about the Jews.
I think you meant to write "anti-Zionist" instead of "antisemitic."
Certainly the Jews don't think the AfD is their friend. https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2026-09-07/ty-arti...
No, it was not. Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment.
> Stop moving goalposts.
This is not moving goal posts. This is precisely the point. Voter ID laws will disenfranchise legal voters. That's it. That's the point.
> No one made the claim the operation is frictionless,
Good. Then you acknowledge that legal voters will be disenfranchised?
We like to think we live in a meritocracy, but the fact so much of success is based on personality, manipulating people, being charming and persuasive, tapping into others' insecurities and ambitions.
Elizabeth Holmes is a symptom of the same basic human dysfunction that brought us Charles Manson and Donald Trump.
Relevant musical interlude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0
By the way, Democrats did not win that election, as Georgia's Republican governor can tell you.
It might be helpful if you understood the definition of "racism" as used in this article before you reject it. Racism is not the same as discrimination. I agree that anyone can judge another person by the color of their skin: that's racial discrimination. Racism (again, as used in this article, not necessarily as used in everybody life) is defined as a particularly hierarchical view of the races based on social order. Thus, by that thinking, black people can't be racist because they aren't in a position to oppress white people.
But all of that is a digression from the original point of this conversation, which is implicit bias, according to which everyone is somewhat racist because they judge people at an automatic, unconscious level. You might find this article less challenging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_stereotype
It's clear that you didn't read past the headline of the article that I linked, since the article makes it clear that structural racism is not the same as implicit bias.
You are welcome to disagree with the extent that structural racism is present in American society today, but it makes no sense to dismiss the idea of structural racism. Slavery, as practiced in the US before the civil war, is a clear example of structural racism. Or do you think that race did not play a part in slavery?
> It teaches us to suspect everyone around us, which promotes division and hatred, not love and unity.
Perhaps, but that's an argument from outcomes, not from principles. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
<rolls eyes>
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-president-and-c...
Nothing personal. The fact is that a lot of people are racist: that's the basis of "implicit bias" which I gather you did not bother to read about, despite my encouragement. Given that, it's statistically likely that everyone knows a racist. I know plenty of racists, and I wish I didn't. I'm not judging people, I'm just playing the odds.
Before continuing this conversation, please complete the required reading: https://www.nationalequityproject.org/articles/dont-talk-abo...
The president has given up pretending to obey the law. He's torn down the east wing of the White House (which does not belong to him), he's issued Executive Orders that contradict a plain reading of the Constitution (14th amendment, among others), he has gratuitously and repeatedly violated the Emoluments Clause, he has used the DOJ to attack political enemies on the thinnest of pretenses, he is continuing an illegal "armed conflict" in violation of the War Powers Resolution, etc, etc. This has all been documented thoroughly elsewhere: the president acts like a king and demonstrates contempt for his oath of office.
That, in combination with his civil rights abuses, are tantamount to fascism. Under the guise of "immigration enforcement," he's unleashed a horde of undertrained, overpaid henchmen who apparently act above the law, killing people, including US citizens, and denying medical care to detainees, without any fear of accountability. He's also sought to withdraw citizenship from and cancel visas to those people who are legally in the US but, for whatever reason, displease him. This kind of capricious, content-based discrimination, without Congressional oversight, is exactly what the Founding Fathers fought to prevent.
Any other really easy questions?
Please read up on "implicit bias."
The modern right wants to replace democratic rule of law with enlightened despotism focused on eliminating perceived racial, sexual, and ideological impurities.
The modern left wants universal healthcare and high taxes for billionaires, similar to the well-known death cult of Norway. /s
These things are not the same.
To be clear: if you think you haven't met a racist in decades, you're probably wrong. I call into question your ability to accurately diagnose racism.
Are you literally asking for a moral re-evaluaion of fascism?
Fascinating. I've found the perfect example of "white victimhood." Thank you for sharing your truth that "minorities are the real racists."
What utter nonsense.
"Spewing vitriol" is loaded language used to smear people you disagree with.
The fact is that during the Nazi regime, some people did speak out against the atrocities, and some people did fight back. More people should have. Those who did resist would certainly have been described as "spewing vitriol" by those in power. I wish my grandmother was that brave.
> What about the other side of the coin - about all of those people, who survived, because they were nice and friendly?
Some things are more important than surviving.