grindemup

u/grindemup@lemmy.world
0 posts · 164 comments

Recent posts

No posts.

Recent comments

Well yeah of course you do and of course it does, for example if you're not skilled at using a hammer or if you're subcontracting the use of the hammer to someone that you need to ultimately review/oversee.

Yes, different tools do different things, good job for understanding that. The point being made here is that you can still use those different tools responsibly if you have the requisite knowledge and take appropriate care.

on advertising rule · c/196 · 4 pts · 217d

I don't understand what your argument is. As far as advertisers are concerned, money is indeed the end goal and ultimate metric of success. So if advertising leads to more money, that is success as far as they are concerned. The philosophical outlook of the consumer does not pertain to this argument. But I think I'm misunderstanding your point so perhaps you could clarify?

There is a certified tape of him saying "grab them by the pussy" and lots of other extremely problematic behaviour that has been readily admitted to or else clearly indicated with verified evidence. Some things only have circumstantial or hearsay evidence—but it sure as hell ain't everything. By muddying the waters you are helping to weaken the case against him.

"zero factors that could effect that degradation"

So in other words, only a completely unrealistic estimate can be made? After all, our sun is not going to be the same in 5 billion years, so unless the material comes along with a solution to maintain the material's temperature (as per the manufacturer's website the longevity is temperature-dependent) then 14 billion years sounds rather unlikely.

on Norway José! · c/microblogmemes · 7 pts · 233d

France may not participate directly in imperialism these days, but it sure as hell has neocolonial and exploitative structures in place. E.g. see this Jacobin article.

on bus stop · c/funhole · 4 pts · 235d

This is the cultural highlight of the century. Thank you for your sacrifice OP.

Yes I can objectively say that he was involved in mass murder. Could you please explain how the killing of hundreds of civilians, unprovoked and without warning, doesn't constitute murder? Judged as a "flagrant violation of international law" by the UN, Bush disgustingly claimed that Panama had declared a state of war against the US, even though what really happened is that Panama declared that US had already invoked war against Panama through psychological and military harrassment (which was accurate). And then sent thousands of soldiers to invade and ultimately kill innocent civilians.

I'm not saying this individual chose to personally kill these people. But was he involved? By his own admission, yes.