Resonosity

How is it dubious

most of whom were arrested en masse without any process resembling justice—just tattoos, zip codes, or looking nervous.

That's the price they pay for letting their culture get that bad.

Why are you talking about tattoos here?

The person you're responding to highlighted some text from the article, pointing to injustice of the regime by believing tattoos automatically = jail.

You said their "bad culture" is the price they pay, implicitly grouping tattoo, zip codes, and looking nervous defined by the previous comment all under "bad culture" of those who do go to jail.

You then gaslight me for pointing out your fascism and disregard for civil liberties by avoiding any correlation with tattoos because you didn't mention them explicitly.

Every knows what you were talking about bro. The fact you asked this question makes me think you're a troll with no convictions for attacking modern fascism. Thanks for giving that away so all of us can treat you as such.

Tattoos are not a sign of a culture getting bad.

Your behavior of intolerance is a sign, however.

People like you are why I wish the US had re-education camps like China. You need to unlearn your bullshit.

I never liked tattoos and they're more-often-than-not an indicator of people that I should avoid.

I never liked bootlicking, individualistic, snowflake fascists and they're more-often-than-not an indicator of people that I should avoid.

I'm honestly ok with sending you to a concentration camp with no regards for your safety or wellbeing after that comment.

Tattoos are a form of free speech that applies to one's body, and should be afforded all of the protections of the first amendment.

I cannot believe we're having this conversation in 2025.

TIL

Thanks for compiling this so I can reference it later if Firefox ever becomes an issue

Both sides are bad. And by that I mean Democrats never represent the Left while routinely allowing the Right to exert their selfishness and greed. They are controlled opposition to frame American politics as a binary, when in reality an entire half of the political spectrum could be represented to widespread approval

If it's a straight line from Nixon to Trump as you say, then why claim Republicans are environmentalists with Nixon as your example?

He said straight line THROUGH Nixon and Trump, not straight line TO Nixon and Trump.

The former implies distinct and self-evident political differences, whereas the latter implies political evolution from one into the other where both politicians have a common set of political similarities.

I can't help but think at this point that we're reaching comprehension issues...

You say "it's too long ago when Republicans were different" isn't a valid argument.

He didn't say that. You did.

He pointed out your hypocrisy when you said that stating the fact that Nixon created the EPA must mean he's a Republican (and a MAGAt one at that), but then turned heel and said that any politicians from 50 years ago don't matter (likely because the political landscape then is not the same as the political landscape now, which is reasonably true - he makes this same point by saying 1860 Republicans are not the same as 1960 Republicans or 2025 Republicans).

You stated he's a Republican, then dissolved your own claim by saying support for past Republicans doesn't matter. You've closed your own logic loop.

Why can't stating facts just be that: stating facts.

Instead, people have to insert imaginations of their interlocutor's position so they can try to dish an "own" before asking them for clarification first.

And we wonder why discourse is broken in today's age

Over half of all humans as of 2020 live in cities.

Cities on average (at least in the US) have 5-15% green space compared to their built environment.

Sustainability considers not only environment and health, but also the welfare of the birds themselves.

Free range is thought to be the highest standard of welfare for bird raising. The USDA doesn't have a definition for how much acreage is the bare minimum to reach this status, but the EU defines this as 1 bird per 43 sq ft. This is compared to many plants that require 36 sq ft or less to grow.

All of this is to say that the majority of people don't have good access to sufficient land to raise their own chickens, let alone other animals for consumption or even vegetables as with community gardens.

If we want to be more sustainable with our food production, we need to look at how how our food systems work and how we can better integrate them with the places we live in via zoning and urban design. That mentality lends itself better to plant-based farming, which is more sustainable overall compared to the convention.