• 0 Posts
  • 81 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle



  • This also ignores that shouting at someone in no way infringes on their ability to speak. It’s just something they don’t like to happen. Ironically, much like women going to abortion clinics and getting shouted down and harassed, simply based on their religious belief that abortion is wrong. But whew, let’s not apply logic to their beliefs…


  • CMLVI@kbin.socialtoMemes@lemmy.mlEvery third post on Lemmy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s live like a community.

    Unless you’re gay or trans or non-religious. While you’re doing community activities with me, I’m going to spend every other waking moment trying to get your human rights taken away.

    But when I have time, we’ll schedule some of those community things.



  • Are you looking for an answer to a question, or are you looking for a debate?

    At any rate, reducing the utility of an item to what it’s “lowest performance” should be to lower it’s ability to harm for non-intended uses is asinine. Who sets the limits? Does a knife need to be razor sharp? I can cut a lot of things with a dull knife and some time. It would pose less danger to you if all knives I had access to were purposefully dull. To prevent me from procuring an overly sharp knife, make the material strong enough to cut foods, but brittle enough to not be one overly sharp. Knives, after all, we’re made to stab, cut, and dissect a wide arrange of materials, flesh included. This specific design poses limitless danger to you, and needs to be considered when manufacturing these tools.

    Guns are not majorly sold specifically to kill people, in the grand scheme of things. Hunting is probably the largest vector of volume gun sales in the US. How do you design a weapon that can be useful for hunting, but ineffective at killing a human? They all possess the innate ability to do so, but so does even the smallest pocket knife or kitchen knife.

    I’m also a big gun control advocate, so I’m not defending anything I like. The failings of US gun control are squarely on the idea that everyone should possess a gun until they prove they shouldnt; it’s reactive policy. Active gun control would limit who can possess a gun from the start to those that will only use it for “appropriate” reasons.




  • Agreed. If the workers are going to be separated from the profits via the company, the workers need to be separated from the company via union. The union and workers would have an interest in the companies success, cause no one wants to look for a new job if they like what they do and are compensated fairly. The company has a stake in the workers happiness because unrest endangers the company. Too many owners and LLCs are insulated from the consequences of strikes and negotiations simply because they have the capital to sit on their hands or burn it to the ground with little repurcussion.




  • The crazy part is, the majority of those voters have neither power nor money. They just get caught up in the cult of personality the GOP has going on. Every single one of their candidates is trying to be a hero for Republican voters. Trump will Make America Great Again. DeSantis will save the children from woke politics and trafficking. The other candidates are a mix of the two. None of them are grounded in reality, and none of them are offering actual solutions outside of catch phrases and threats/promises to end X “threat”.