When living in a larger house, I had the litter box under the stairs, in a small apartment, bathroom was the best option.
319 karma · joined December 4, 2019
But the statement here is that on one side, it's goes a lot further than social media...
As someone from europe, the american democrats are in no way extreme on abortion, I would say they are somewhat centrist, maybe even slightly conservative.
I would guess that what I consider to be amazing service isn't the same thing as what you would consider to be amazing service.
As a european, I really don't think that's true.
Is tpb somehow worse than the other sites mentioned?
A week ago, nobody what so ever, cared about WSB.
Today, I just had a conversation with my dad about WSB... Everyone is talking about it, I'm not surprised that someone even talked about it on some facebook board-meeting or whatever...
It sort of made sense then to focus so heavily on growth, they had an entire planet (not really, but a large portion) that would buy their stuff. Worring about income distribution seemed a bit unnessecary when there was so much growth that "everyone" gets a piece of the cake.
This really isn't the case anymore, but a large part (maybe even a majority) of americans still seem to think that growth is the most important factor when designing their economic system.
The new administration doesn't have a mandate to change this, Biden didn't win because he promised reform, he won because he promised to stop trump from dismantling american democracy. And he won with a really small margin.
While I generally argue that the american institutions are dysfunctional, I really wouldn't blame the current administration for not addressing the issue, not only do they not have the mandate, but their stated political ideology is "liberalism", not social democracy, so why would they want to?
Sure, if you are going 5x speed limit and then crash, I wouldn't blame anyone but the driver for that, I could also understand that it could be reasonable to expect a fire in that situation.
But this article is about the doors, if you are unable to open the door without a working battery, that is indeed a problem...
Or, atleast, that it have been obvious that they will soon be...
I know that you are never ever supposed to compare someone with nazis, and if you do, you automatically lose. But isn't there a point where someone can act like a nazi to the degree that it becomes dishonest to not call them a nazi?
When trump repeatedly lies about the election being stolen, is it really that far-fetched to make that comparison?
I can fully understand that you dislike that people on the internet compare trump supporters to isis supporters, but using that to make the both sides are the same argument is really farfetched.
America has some serious problems, and it's democracy is really flawed, but it is still a democracy. If you want to mend the country you can't have half the country living in an alternate reality. Truth isn't something you can compromize away just to avoid being "partisan".
Since you used the words watch and viewers in relation to news, I can recomend:
But as someone who values democracy, I have to be honest about there being a huge difference between the two american paries, especially since trump. (But arguably since nixon).
Sure, I agree that there are lots of emotions everywhere, and people are attacking trump & followers for both valid and invalid reasons, but using the invalid ones to smooth over the valid ones is in my mind (atleast) as bad as the irrational attacks.
To go back to an earlier post in this comment chain, this is the reason why I think that starting a post with "I dislike trump, but.." is a good thing, so that one can criticize the irrational attacks without smoothing over the rational ones.
Also, I don't think intelligence has much to do with this, but rather:
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how-cognitive-bias-can-ex...
Yes, the atmosphere we find ourselves in is horrible. But I would argue that the "post-truth" strategy used by trump & friends is the main reason for this.
When it is so common to be intelectually dishonest, those disclaimers are needed, and with how easy it is to misunderstand people on the internet, I think that those disclaimers are something positive, people really should add "/s" when being sarcastic as an example.
How would you suggest one should handle dishonest liars on the internet? Personally I think that one should call them out on their lies, but everytime that is done, someone, (in this case, you), come along and call it "partisan hyperbole"...
Sure, we could argue that "terrorist" is the wrong word to use here, but if we used another word, such as "criminals", I would guess that you would still make pretty much the same argument.
And talking about "toxic divisiveness" while defending people trying to overthrow an election? Are you even listening to yourself?
What I mean is that our view of history is often written from a western perspective, and therefore biased in favour of western civilization.
As a consequence of this, when we learn that something we had previously thought to be true, might not actually be true, it is likely that the new information portrays western civilization in a less favourable light.
If you would use the definition you wrote here, a lot of things would be considered terrorism. There would probably be more terrorists than non-terrorists in the world then..
But anyway, I think we can agree on the "violence is wrong"-part, and the counterproductive part.
But saying that if any form of violence occured during a protest, then those protests should be considered equal, is, well, I don't even know what to call it; Dishonest?
Now, what I really disagree about is the "I'm pointing out media hypocrisy"-part. I really don't think you are doing that, I think that what you are doing is, complaining that "the media" seems to agree more with me than with you on this issue, and then phrasing it like your point of view is objectively correct.
Why would you even try to group those two things together?
How could it possibly be a problem that "the media" doesn't consider those two things equal?
But if someone voted for trump 2020, it is very reasonable to say that that person is against democracy.
But I would suspect that the same (but opposite) goes for you, since I constantly hear about non-conservatives getting demonetized.
But anyway, I do agree that there is a problem here, in that some corporations have way too much power. I would argue that the solution is that those corporations need to be regulated and broken up into smaller parts.
So, I think we need to do something about amazon, but in this case, we also needed to do something about parler, and now amazon did that for us.
The zuckerberg example: I would argue that in that scenario, it would be (at least) equally obvious that said regulations where needed. The difference would be that in that scenario, I would argue that zuckerberg was abusing his power, but with what's happening now, I don't think that amazon is abusing their power, (because I think that amazons reason is a valid one), but I still think that they shouldn't have that much power.
I'm a bit tired, but hopefully I'm still making some sense.
This makes people talk about how they think it should work, not just how it works right now, which I think is exactly what is needed.
Besides that, probably not much. =)
Here is one from the other side of the pond: Private entities setting up rules for their services and then enforcing those rules are not that controversial.