this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2025
593 points (98.4% liked)

Microblog Memes

8930 readers
2253 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

But it's not zero sum. You don't have to do this linearly. It's not social safety net first, everything else after. It's both at the same time. That's not how funding prioritization works.

And again, even if it was, there are plenty of things to deprioritize before you deprioritize research or space exploration.

This is the problem with even having this conversation here. Why bring it up here at all? This is not the thing where you go "oh, but don't we have other priorities" unless you're actively opposed to this being a priority because holy crap, are there worse priorities to go after.

Honestly, this argument is so American it's not even worth it.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not backpedaling. If anything I was pulling punches up front because hey, a lot of people get swayed by conservative propaganda arguing that useful stuff shouldn't get funded because they defunded other useful stuff. I was being nice.

I think I'm done being nice, which means "don't talk to Americans about politics, it's a waste of time" policy is back online.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's not social safety net first, everything else after. It's both at the same time.

I've said this was easily possible 3 times now, but you seem to have decided to read what you want. Regardless of what's being said.

Might be for the best to follow your own policy if you fail to read and comprehend the nuances of the conversation.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 3 days ago

I know you said it.

I responded.

If you want to have a conversation about it... well, still no. But repeating the argument that has been addressed multiple times and accusing the other guy of poor reading comprehension isn´t it.

That one is because of being from the Internet. Not blaming the US for that one.