webadict

@webadict@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

webadict,

Why don’t you list a few people who you think this comic refers to who are not, in fact, fascists?

webadict,

The biggest mistake a lot of people make is being born poor.

webadict,

Science seems to prove that gender identity and sex are seperate concepts but is inconclusive about signs of intelligent life in you.

webadict,

You seem like a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.

webadict,

Repeat same talking point.

The things you say are useless, especially since these are adjusted by household size. Do one that isn’t.

webadict,

Their data is adjusted for family size. Family size has been consistently shrinking since the 1960s, which, if you adjust their graph, will lead to overall decrease in wages throughout time. It is a meaningless method of transformation to get data that supports a false narrative.

Why did you not point out that their data is transformed when I did?

webadict,

Fuck off, sea lion.

webadict,

Google it, sea lion.

webadict,

People complain about slavery yet without it they wouldn’t be housed and fed. Curious…

webadict,

The only way you think stealing to live is unethical is if you value property more than life.

webadict,

Is it actually incorrect? I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong, but it just sounds bizarre or Shakespearean if you use it when it’s not an auxiliary verb.

“I’ve no need for that.” is a perfectly cromulent sentence.

webadict,

There’s more than two choices the same way there’s more than two choices for calling a coin. You can call a side. You can call for the edges. You can call that it balances diagonally. You can even call for a unicorn to magically appear over one of the sides. The chances are so slim that you might as well have chosen no side at all, but it could happen, and it is a choice.

Personally, anyone that says there are more than two parties has no idea how statistics and/or voting works, or they don’t really care about the outcome.

Joe Biden calls trans people “fabric of our nation” in Trans Day of Visibility proclamation (www.lgbtqnation.com)

In commemoration of the upcoming Transgender Day of Visibility (TDOV), President Joe Biden issued a statement praising trans people’s contributions to society and describing actions his administration has taken to counter transphobic bullying and extremism. Additionally, many members of Biden’s Department of Health and Human...

webadict,

It’s a 10 day old account, they are 100% a bad faith actor, and you know this because they don’t acknowledge any of the ways to push for better treatment of Palestinian civilians. They are using them as a prop to tell people to not vote for Joe Biden (which is its own brand of fucked up privileged), even though Joe Biden is pretty famous for being bullied into better positions. Voting against fascists is, indeed, the right move, and Joe Biden might be a centrist liberal, but he isn’t a fucking fascist.

webadict,

Please list the descriptors that show Joe Biden is a fascist, because I’m looking at Umberto Eco’s and I see… maybe 1, if you reach a bit: “appeal to the middle class”

You probably fall under at least 4 though.

webadict,

Imagine posting your definition for fascism instead of nothing relevant.

webadict,

That’s not really a good answer though. Those are policies put in place long before Biden became president, but not only that, you haven’t proposed an alternative. Your current solution is “Don’t vote for Biden” but the outcome is that you either get Biden, a continuation of the status quo at worst, or you get Trump, a continuation of the status quo AT BEST. You can pretend you live in a world where you get a third party candidate, but you don’t.

Which leaves you in an unfortinate bind, since that makes you a fascist by your own definition. You are trying to push a solution that would make the situation at best the same, and at worst, much, much worse. As you said:

Any president not acting to dismantle that is fascist

I assume you would never take an action that would support a fascist. So, how can you argue that in a First-Past-The-Post voting system (and one that defaults to state legislatures if no majority is made), voting for a third party is a viable solution?

I think you can’t if you are against fascism. You can post links to antifascist movements, organizations, or steps to take, but the American election system is too fucked to argue against the two big parties unless you are ever the optimist, but I don’t think you are if you argue both parties are fascist.

webadict,

Lol you all find yourselves special because you are not a “Republican”

Ohh p.s. I’m not Republican

The irony is lost on you.

webadict,

Users create and/or share content, check. Users discuss content, check.

Unless you think something is missing from that definition, Lemmy is social media. It is pseudonymous, but it is still social because of the users.

webadict,

Yeah, I suppose those would. I wouldn’t have thought it, but definitionally, it would be! I mean, heck, some of those are listed by Meriam-Webster! Isn’t language neat? You learn something new every day.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social media

Dirty clothes & dead kids (sh.itjust.works)

alt-text: there’s laundry to do and a genocide to stop. I have to eat better and also avoid a plague. my rent went up $150. I’ll need to pick up more shifts. Twenty people died in Rafah this morning and every major news outlet is stretching the limits of passive voice to suggest whole families may have leaped up through the...

webadict,

I think you mean “voted for”, he isn’t Congress, and therefore doesn’t pass bills, unless you suggest that only passed legislation makes someone one particular political wing, in which case, I’d argue that seems like a deeply flawed understanding of government.

webadict,

Was it obvious? Because it seems “obvious” to me that you moved the goalposts. If someone points to a senator or representatives at the federal level, you’d point to the lack of left-wing legislation they passed. That’s goalpost moving. Would you like me to point at non-federal positions so you can say they aren’t meaningful in spite of their passing of left-wing policies that affect my state or city? Also, I’ll give you a hint, all of those politicians are NOT one of the two major parties.

The point is that one party is definitely different from the other, especially if you’re queer, pregnant, able to become pregnant, a child, elderly, working, or a racial minority.

webadict,

There are plenty of right-wing governments that are staunchly anti-queer, and the reason would be that queer would fall under non-traditional (queer is literally synonymous with odd, weird, etc.)

Right-wing has several definitions, but using “individualism” would be incorrect for most of them. Right-wing would include heirarchical, traditional, militaristic, and/or authoritarian values. The only individuals that are respected in the political right are those at the top of heirarchies (e.g. authority figures like the military and police). What you espouse as individualism would likely be (little L) libertarianism, which is a classically left-wing philosophy.

I think you might be confused about your political left, as well.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • JUstTest
  • cubers
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • tacticalgear
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • thenastyranch
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • modclub
  • kavyap
  • ethstaker
  • megavids
  • osvaldo12
  • khanakhh
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • everett
  • ngwrru68w68
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tester
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines