-1c/politics mods having a normal one lemmy.worldc/yepowertrippinbastards · by AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world · 1y · 9 comments
-10When the cops ask who burned down their precinct c/anarchistsforkamala · by AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world · 2y · 0 comments
-8Tell that boy he's wrong, girls are strong. c/anarchistsforkamala · by AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world · 2y · 0 comments
on What's something you enjoy eating that other people think is super weird? · c/asklemmy · 8 pts · 1ySoylent original. it's so plain. I love it. I could switch to it almost entirely. I could get fat on it.
on c/politics mods having a normal one · c/yepowertrippinbastards · 6 pts · 1ythat's what this post is, but it's not what caused the ban
on c/politics mods having a normal one · c/yepowertrippinbastards · 2 pts · 1yhaving multiple fediverse accounts is not bannable, and ad hominem is itself bad faith. calling it out is not.
on We did it, guys! · c/politicalmemes · 35 pts · 1ywhen does the candidate become responsible for their own turnout
on Too soon? · c/flippanarchy · 5 pts · 1yif the first one is true then the second explanation is moot
on How do I quit smoking? · c/asklemmy · 2 pts · 1yI used nicotine pouches for a year then cold turkeyed at day 365
on banned from climate@slrpnk.net for calling out the government on climate change. · c/yepowertrippinbastards · -1 pts · 1y votes for candidates not endorsed by large groups of voters have no effect on the outcome i think 2016 jill stein voters are owed an apology then. and the 2000 nader voters
on What can we do · c/whitepeopletwitter · 1 pts · 1ya lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence in the positive.
on What can we do · c/whitepeopletwitter · 1 pts · 1yif you don't like my suggestion, feel free to do the ineffectual things above.
on What can we do · c/whitepeopletwitter · 1 pts · 1ybut we don't know that they would continue the actions that led to their predecessors removal. it's an interesting theory and we can test it!!
on What can we do · c/whitepeopletwitter · 1 pts · 1yit's intentionally vague. build an affinity group and assess your capabilities.
on What can we do · c/whitepeopletwitter · 1 pts · 1yyour assertion isn't that inheritances exist, but that removing billionaires will result in more billionaires continuing the destruction of the planet. there is no evidence for this, since billionaire removal has not been tested.
on What can we do · c/whitepeopletwitter · -1 pts · 1yok well if you don't have any evidence I'm going to dismiss your conclusion.
on What can we do · c/whitepeopletwitter · 1 pts · 1yI didn't say they are. but these options are not effective.
no one wanted my memes before the election
Soylent original.
it's so plain. I love it. I could switch to it almost entirely. I could get fat on it.
that's what this post is, but it's not what caused the ban
having multiple fediverse accounts is not bannable, and ad hominem is itself bad faith. calling it out is not.
they said fight, not hope
when does the candidate become responsible for their own turnout
if the first one is true then the second explanation is moot
I used nicotine pouches for a year then cold turkeyed at day 365
let me know when they work
i think 2016 jill stein voters are owed an apology then. and the 2000 nader voters
they seem authoritative.
thanx
a lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence in the positive.
if you don't like my suggestion, feel free to do the ineffectual things above.
but we don't know that they would continue the actions that led to their predecessors removal. it's an interesting theory and we can test it!!
it's intentionally vague. build an affinity group and assess your capabilities.
your assertion isn't that inheritances exist, but that removing billionaires will result in more billionaires continuing the destruction of the planet. there is no evidence for this, since billionaire removal has not been tested.
ok well if you don't have any evidence I'm going to dismiss your conclusion.
I didn't say they are. but these options are not effective.