I identify myself as a homosexual.

I’ve heard homo being used in a derogatory way as an insult. That usage should not be tolerated.

Retarded is just a medical term, yet you can use it as an insult as well.

That is what this “specification of conditional” aims at. It’s fine to use the word in a descriptive way, you’re just not allowed to go around angrily calling people “fucking zionist”

They simply don’t exist anymore. The only choice is to do this with a smart TV and never connect it to the internet.

From the link of this post that you could have clicked on:

Twitch specifies this is conditional: you’re allowed to discuss the political movement of that name, but not “attack or demean another individual or group of people on the basis of their background or religious belief.”

If you had looked at the link of this post, you would have read:

Twitch specifies this is conditional: you’re allowed to discuss the political movement of that name, but not “attack or demean another individual or group of people on the basis of their background or religious belief.”

I.e. nothing is masqueraded here as long as they keep to this. This seems to be a reasonable policy. I’ve seen a couple of instances of people being derogatorily called zionists just for supporting the people of current Israel not being pushed away out of their now decades-old homes, which is hard to still call Zionist if they don’t support any further expansion and any offensive military action.

There’s almost never anything gained to use “Zionist” on someone as if saying “asshole”.

What is “better in general”? I don’t particularly mind the human species going extinct, it’s unlikely there’ll be no life left over. No one knows the nature of the universe.

In any case, it’s incredibly unlikely we’ll go extinct anytime soon. Maybe climate change etc causes extreme loss of life, but humans are so adaptive, some will surely survive.

No one can even define “enlightenment” either. Maybe we already are, maybe such a thing doesn’t exist. Currently, it’s just a story element.

TSS? Totally sexy speech? “Text sucks” software? Tangible speech service?

Reddit is basically entirely image or video posts, all hosted by reddit directly.

That’s not all, probably not even the main one. It’s a major cost of living crisis and impoverishment of average people while companies and the richest get richer. Neither the Ds nor the Rs want to do anything against it, they get their money from there.

The people kinda understand this. But they’re not intelligent enough to distinguish “actually changing the system” with “just saying they’re gonna change the system”, like Trump does. Trump is always talking about uprooting the deep state and bringing an “average person”(white middle/lower class) perspective to politics, and people just gobble it up and believe it because he’s kinda good at talking with conviction.

Of course the misogyny and racism is part of it and an extra, but it’s not the main reason at all. For some people it is, of course.

What should happen to Palestinians if Israel is chosen? What should happen to Israelis if Palestine is chosen?

Most of Israel’s weapons come from the US. It’s very well possible for the US congress/government to say “no more weapons if you use them for agression”.

It’s naive to think the US is a democracy. It’s mostly an oligarchy with a few democratic features. The only choice is to vote Harris, but she is only barely less right-wing than Trump, from a European perspective. She will continue the oligarchy.

The only hope there is, is that all the people in the US start to understand they don’t have a democracy. The vote for D needs to become overwhelming. Then, R will die out and an alternative choice on the further left side may emerge as a serious contender. Then, this further left choice needs to become overwhelming.

Eventually, this will lead to real change.

Why this must work like this is because the US’ democratic system only supports 2 parties with its first-past-the-post system. Until a reform of this voting system takes place, towards a ranked choice style system, there can’t be good representation. While any organization into a limited number of parties inherently means that almost no one will be represented perfectly, the less parties there are, the more the average divergence of reprentation there will be. 2 is just an unbelievably small number of opinion groupings to choose from, much too little to get anywhere near good representation.

It’s not a democracy if the choices available don’t work for the common person, which they both don’t. Democracy means that what the majority says, goes. Which is clearly not what’s happening, because the majority wants to get rid of billionaires and do something about climate change and so on and so on.

Of course, but I’m talking about what was literally said. The further reasons, like you describe, are easy to deduce as well, but I was just responding to the comment that didn’t seem to understand anything, neither the overt nor the covert reasons.

I’m confused how you don’t see the logic. It says right there.

He claims that the lost “potential population” from teen parents will cost the state revenue and political representation.

A person pays taxes. Less people = less tax income. More people = more tax income.

It’s entirely idiotic, but it’s not hard to understand?

It feels to me like you don’t hate progress, but you hate late stage capitalism.

If progress happened without it being forced on you, without you “having” to adapt to not “fall behind”, when all your needs were provided for without having to compete to satisfy them…

Would you really mind progress that much?

Maybe because the whole “blue light in displays” has no real effect on our sleep

I’m sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but I’ll give my perspective anyway.

Why do you care about getting “back in your industry/career”? Yeah you did it previously, but is it really what makes you happy?

When you have goals, you always think “once I reach this, everything will be better”. In my experience and with everyone I ever talked with, this was never the lasting case. Reaching some nice goal gave satisfaction for days or sometimes even weeks or months, but never longer. Then it was back to dissatisfaction and another goal.

The common path frequently described out of depression is getting back into the groove of setting goals, following them, not being satisfied, setting another goal, repeat. This is not how I got out of my depression and also not a good life.

I don’t think it’s important that you reach your goal of getting back in your industry or whatever. I think it’s important that you’re fine with not reaching it. I think it’s important to recognize that you can be happy and satisfied right where you are, exactly with what you have.

One thing that people didn’t mention yet: this is the behavior that made him (stay) a billionaire. You don’t get to be one by being nice and non-exploitative.

What to do with it is to act understanding and empathetic with people like that instead of standoffish and hostile. You still insist on the better way of doing things, but there’s no actual need to attack anyone that doesn’t support the better way of doing things, even if their reasons aren’t rational or even morally questionable/bad. It only serves to further entrench them in their positions, while the opposite might have a chance to happen in a more cooperative approach.

Funny how you made exactly the comment the article predicted within itself xD