Why?...
Is that in any way relevant to the point Dagwood222 was making?
what came before. 🤔
A better system that was destroyed and replaced by worse one? Proving Dagwood222 right?
Eh, while cash bail should be ended, it's disingenuous to claim there is no reasoning for it's existence.
In all leadership positions, period. Capitalist or communist. Democratic or autocratic. Does not matter, those that are not held back by their morals have an advantage.
Here's my take: the bear thing is causing such a visceral reaction that it is very hard to take a step back, not take it personally and have a rational discussion about it.
Imo the bear thing was phrased in a way to cause that visceral reaction. It was intended to be antagonistic. If the same point was phrased the way you phrased it above, I want to believe we would have much more civil discussion about it. But instead, the posts put many male readers on the defensive and those that tried to explain were seen as defending this antagonistic stance.
That is no excuse for DM harassment or harassment on other posts, just my take on the reason the discussion turned so uncivil.
I wanted to post something like this but could not write it well. Thanks for posting it.
Exactly. As a SW engineer, I don't know how far we are from an AGI exactly, but I am confident enough Altman and openAi have no idea where to even start.
So the gov wants to claim the FDA did not regulate mifepristone hard enough, but this is perfectly fine. What a world.
Because the founding fathers had to make a lot of concessions to the already existing states that were not thrilled to give up their power and rights?
States literally don't even have to have elections. If they pass a law that the their electoral votes will be given to a winner of a raffle or a quiz show, they can do that according to the US constitution.
The will federate, try their best to suck as many users from fediverse as possible into threads, then defederate and become a walled garden again.
As for how they will suck users away:
He is not explaining current world events, he is making one simple statement. The why has no relevance to the truth of that one statement (as far as I can tell). It seems to me you don't like the statement, so you try to bring in irrelevant points instead of accepting it. This is the kind of irrational thinking that makes people vote for Trump. I am not saying this to insult you, all humans are prone to this kind of thinking. I say it so you can strive to improve.
Of course, if I am mistaken, then just ignore this.