I know approximately zero about feddit.org other than something I read yesterday that said you guys strictly adhere to and enforce German antisemitism law, which includes not maligning Israel.
As you can imagine, this post was a surprise to me, as is the level of snark you're giving the person you responded to.
It seems to be a pervasive enough rumor that you should not assume that people who believe it are operating in bad faith.
It is. The Ds and Rs are not two separate monoliths. They are friends, coworkers, and individuals who’s class/professional interests are directly in conflict with our own.
Literally none of that has anything to do with whether or not we're talking about a false dichotomy.
I think you're confused about what a "false dichotomy" is, or maybe you think "It is" is a good explanation for your reasoning. It isn't.
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am saying do not support or legitimize them and it is important to call them out on their bullshit instead of running cover for them. I do view voting for them as legitimization, I am asking the questions I am to try and provide you an opportunity to share some perspective that changes/conflicts/opposes that. So far, you have done the opposite.
Again, this is based on your misunderstanding of First Past the Post voting systems.
It's like if someone pointed a gun at your friend and your neighbor and said, "Who should I shoot? If you say nothing, I will shoot your friend."
People like you say nothing and get their friend shot, but feel righteous for it, proud that they did not endorse murder of their neighbor.
I am specifically asking for clarity around your previously stated position:
If the Rs are enthusiastic about supporting genocide and the Ds are toying with going against it? I’ll vote D.
You have contradicted this statement twice now without any explanation as to why, or how it differs.
No I haven't. I get that you('re pretending you) don't understand my position despite explaining it to you several times, but that doesn't change the fact that I explained it. I can't make you understand it.
When you ask silly questions based on straw men, you are not endeavoring to understand my position. It's fine if you don't actually want to, but stop wasting time pretending you do.
Oversimplifying but I think it's worth thinking about an angle I haven't seen here yet:
People to tend to trust Big Corporate care-givers and distrust private individual caregivers.
There are of course Good Reasons for this (Who do you sue if they hurt your loved one? Who licenses and trains them?), but among the Bad Reasons are: People just inherently trust a big name they've heard of before, especially if that big name has similarly gargantuan PR and legal departments who scrub any bad press away.
In other words, you could hire your neighbor to take care of your kids all day, but most people choose not to, and instead send much more money towards big businesses with massive overhead costs because people trust So And So National Healthcare more than Jane Doe.
Specifically here, I’m trying to highlight the death spiral that results from the false dichotomy you seem trapped in. I don’t have a solution, but I need you to understand your “solution” is a core component of the underlying problem.
It's not a false dichotomy, especially once the primaries are over.
I guess you haven't paid much attention to how American elections work (or First Past the Post in general), but the party in third place has 3% of the vote, which is far from a plurality when the top two are at 35% and 30%. Because they're so far from plurality, they act as a "spoiler" party, harming the closest party to them.
Do you see that question as a strawman because I made the consequences explicitly personal instead of abstract? Is it less of a strawman to say “you will support genocide abroad so long as the Dems delay pulling the trigger by 1ns.”?
No, because you are still making up a position of mine to confirm via question. So I'll answer your new straw man of "you will support genocide abroad so long as the Dems delay pulling the trigger by 1ns." again:
No, I don't/wouldn't.
Are you seriously this confused on what a straw man argument is?
What's your aim here, anyway? Propaganda for readers? Convincing me of something? I would say you're not doing well on either metric, given the vast majority of your recent comments are fairly transparent straw men.
Sorry sounded that way, where I’m from we use swear words often to emphasize ideas, but not because we are angry just for emphasis, many times I forget in some places swear words are only “angry words” and they carry way more weight.
That's more or less the same in my area, but you have to remember that text does not convey tone, so your comment could have been read either way; I've had plenty of people across the internet mistake my "So-and-So does X because Y" as defending So-and-So.
My surprise was regarding a society that is so comfortable calling police on neighbours for reasons it doesn’t make sense, like, children playing outside could feel “dangerous” to you (as in the reporter) but it shouldn’t condition how the parent raise their children if they think is safe. It feels to me so weird that: people impose their morals/values to others and they don’t go and talk with the parents first instead of calling the police.
Maybe it's just in my city/state/country, but usually if you go politely confront someone in a way that could come across as judgement, they will double-down and get verbally or physically hostile.
So people don't bother, and call in the Professional Confronters. There's no penalty for being incorrect when calling the police, so it's a no-brainer for many.
5 seconds before a good one gets fired, they're a bastard? What about 5 days? 5 months?
What about someone with all the good intent in their heart 5 minutes before they put on a badge? The second it touches their uniform they instantly become a bastard?
Your ridiculous position melts the second you think about it critically.
Caller doesn't want to accept liability just in case Something Happens to the kids.
Call-taker doesn't want to accept liability just in case Something Happens to the kids.
Comm. Center supervisor doesn't want to accept liability just in case Something Happens to the kids.
Dispatcher doesn't want to accept liability just in case Something Happens to the kids.
Patrol supervisor doesn't want to accept liability just in case Something Happens to the kids.
Patrol LEOs don't want to accept liability just in case Something Happens to the kids.
The end product of this bureaucratic nightmare is harassment-by-proxy, where the cops show up to tell a lady kids aren't supposed to play outside and everyone gets to go home not feeling like they were responsible for the insanity.
- Ex-cop, occasionally insisted on not responding to ridiculous calls that got cancelled when I pressed the issue, was eventually fired
I'm 99% sure I was going with their official documentation, which you linked just there.
I can't speak for what I read or how I interpreted it ~6 months ago, other than to say I understood upgrading was not supported and I was SOL that mine broke.
No, I've never used "sloppy backports" (as the only warning of lack of support I can currently find lists as a problem) and I knew that back then too, so that wasn't the issue.
The truth is we have no idea whether or not the post was racist; we only know that one of the moderators of that community thought it was (or wanted others to think it was).
If it was really racist, I'm glad it's gone and I'm glad they're banned.
If not, the opposite.
But like I said, we'll probably never know the truth. DMing the involved parties could just result in them lying about the content of the post.
I can at least understand where people come from when they claim that adults who can work don't have a right to food. I don't necessarily have to agree with it, but I understand it.
But why doom their kids? An 8 year old shouldn't have their studies affected because they're hungry because their parents are poor. That's antithetical to the American Dream they tend to talk so much about.
Yeah that's what I was saying with my #2
I know approximately zero about feddit.org other than something I read yesterday that said you guys strictly adhere to and enforce German antisemitism law, which includes not maligning Israel.
As you can imagine, this post was a surprise to me, as is the level of snark you're giving the person you responded to.
It seems to be a pervasive enough rumor that you should not assume that people who believe it are operating in bad faith.
Yeah, the bigger the company, the more your money goes to their overhead rather than the product or service itself.
The smaller, the smaller their pockets when it comes time to sue for something they did wrong.
Pros and Cons, like most things.
Prestigious health science man is put in kangaroo court and refuses to play ball.
"Guess that means all science is wrong!"
???
Literally none of that has anything to do with whether or not we're talking about a false dichotomy.
I think you're confused about what a "false dichotomy" is, or maybe you think "It is" is a good explanation for your reasoning. It isn't.
Again, this is based on your misunderstanding of First Past the Post voting systems.
It's like if someone pointed a gun at your friend and your neighbor and said, "Who should I shoot? If you say nothing, I will shoot your friend."
People like you say nothing and get their friend shot, but feel righteous for it, proud that they did not endorse murder of their neighbor.
No I haven't. I get that you('re pretending you) don't understand my position despite explaining it to you several times, but that doesn't change the fact that I explained it. I can't make you understand it.
When you ask silly questions based on straw men, you are not endeavoring to understand my position. It's fine if you don't actually want to, but stop wasting time pretending you do.
It's a flavor of the Paradox of Tolerance:
If you respect disrespectful people, are you a respectful person?
I would say, "No."
Oversimplifying but I think it's worth thinking about an angle I haven't seen here yet:
People to tend to trust Big Corporate care-givers and distrust private individual caregivers.
There are of course Good Reasons for this (Who do you sue if they hurt your loved one? Who licenses and trains them?), but among the Bad Reasons are: People just inherently trust a big name they've heard of before, especially if that big name has similarly gargantuan PR and legal departments who scrub any bad press away.
In other words, you could hire your neighbor to take care of your kids all day, but most people choose not to, and instead send much more money towards big businesses with massive overhead costs because people trust So And So National Healthcare more than Jane Doe.
It's not a false dichotomy, especially once the primaries are over.
I guess you haven't paid much attention to how American elections work (or First Past the Post in general), but the party in third place has 3% of the vote, which is far from a plurality when the top two are at 35% and 30%. Because they're so far from plurality, they act as a "spoiler" party, harming the closest party to them.
No, because you are still making up a position of mine to confirm via question. So I'll answer your new straw man of "you will support genocide abroad so long as the Dems delay pulling the trigger by 1ns." again:
No, I don't/wouldn't.
Are you seriously this confused on what a straw man argument is?
lmao, tuff
I already answered your ridiculous question. Maybe you should polish up on your English reading skills?
Nope!
Cool straw man, though.
What's your aim here, anyway? Propaganda for readers? Convincing me of something? I would say you're not doing well on either metric, given the vast majority of your recent comments are fairly transparent straw men.
That's more or less the same in my area, but you have to remember that text does not convey tone, so your comment could have been read either way; I've had plenty of people across the internet mistake my "So-and-So does X because Y" as defending So-and-So.
Maybe it's just in my city/state/country, but usually if you go politely confront someone in a way that could come across as judgement, they will double-down and get verbally or physically hostile.
So people don't bother, and call in the Professional Confronters. There's no penalty for being incorrect when calling the police, so it's a no-brainer for many.
I can't tell if you're angrily asking me or angrily asking them.
Seems fairly obvious to me, but I'll break down what I suspect their thoughts are for #1:
"Oh I couldn't let something happen to little Timmy! What if he hurt himself or got kidnapped?"
I did read it, but the meme breaks down the moment you give it more than a glance.
So you ignored my entire comment because you can't think critically about this issue?
That's exactly how it worked for my agency.
They were dragging new hires in and ordering them to sign away the union without knowing anything about them.
5 seconds before a good one gets fired, they're a bastard? What about 5 days? 5 months?
What about someone with all the good intent in their heart 5 minutes before they put on a badge? The second it touches their uniform they instantly become a bastard?
Your ridiculous position melts the second you think about it critically.
Liability Hot Potato
Caller doesn't want to accept liability just in case Something Happens to the kids.
Call-taker doesn't want to accept liability just in case Something Happens to the kids.
Comm. Center supervisor doesn't want to accept liability just in case Something Happens to the kids.
Dispatcher doesn't want to accept liability just in case Something Happens to the kids.
Patrol supervisor doesn't want to accept liability just in case Something Happens to the kids.
Patrol LEOs don't want to accept liability just in case Something Happens to the kids.
The end product of this bureaucratic nightmare is harassment-by-proxy, where the cops show up to tell a lady kids aren't supposed to play outside and everyone gets to go home not feeling like they were responsible for the insanity.
- Ex-cop, occasionally insisted on not responding to ridiculous calls that got cancelled when I pressed the issue, was eventually fired
I'm 99% sure I was going with their official documentation, which you linked just there.
I can't speak for what I read or how I interpreted it ~6 months ago, other than to say I understood upgrading was not supported and I was SOL that mine broke.
No, I've never used "sloppy backports" (as the only warning of lack of support I can currently find lists as a problem) and I knew that back then too, so that wasn't the issue.
The truth is we have no idea whether or not the post was racist; we only know that one of the moderators of that community thought it was (or wanted others to think it was).
If it was really racist, I'm glad it's gone and I'm glad they're banned.
If not, the opposite.
But like I said, we'll probably never know the truth. DMing the involved parties could just result in them lying about the content of the post.
I can at least understand where people come from when they claim that adults who can work don't have a right to food. I don't necessarily have to agree with it, but I understand it.
But why doom their kids? An 8 year old shouldn't have their studies affected because they're hungry because their parents are poor. That's antithetical to the American Dream they tend to talk so much about.