I think it’s not necessarily a contradiction to hold your pro-choice and anti-death penalty stance, but it’s still a contradiction to hold the pro-life and pro-death penalty stance if your reasoning behind the pro-life stance is that all life is sacred.

I agree that a person’s body autonomy and the state’s power to execute citizens should not overlap, but I still think that giving the “all life is sacred” line to justify pro-life and then being pro-death penalty “because some people deserve to die” amounts to hypocrisy.

My mind is blown. This is very well written. Thank you

Touché

You can die of cirrhosis from drinking too much for too long, but it’s still culturally held as a stress reliever. You can die from diabetes if you eat too much sugar for too long, but it’s still sold to children as edible happiness. Hell, you can die slowly and painfully from taking too much Tylenol, but it’s still the world’s most popular painkiller by far.

Too much of anything kills eventually. That doesn’t bare any significance to whether or not it’s good for stress in some amount.

Problem is that requires good faith from both sides. If only one side adheres to that then the other side uses it as ammunition and inputs their politically appointed judges anyway.

Case in point, Senator Mitch McConnell crying out in 2015 about Obama wanting to appoint someone at the end of his term, saying that he would be robbing the next president of that legacy and it would be a political appointment. And then Mitch McConnell said nothing as they appointed and Trump approved three blatantly political nominees.

Both sides have to agree that those positions be apolitical or one side just ends up getting screwed. And of course we are not going to see that because Republicans don’t have a shred of decency left and the whole party.

most of the time for no reason at all

Not for no reason. It’s a form of control. If you genuinely believe that the opposing party is going to bring the country to ruin, you’re a lot less likely to consider their position in politics.

Look at the affordable care act. Conservatives hated/hate it because “obamacare” was portrayed as giving free health care to the lazy poor that you have to pay for as a hard working conservative. When asked if we should repeal Obamacare, conservatives poll something crazy like 95% yes, simply because it’s a bad word they learned.

Many of those conservatives have health care through the ACA and get mad when Republicans take it away because they need it. Those same conservatives mostly aren’t even aware that what they have is literally obamacare.

It’s control all the way down.

Politics is fundamentally different for conservatives. They have to have someone to hate. It’s drilled into them by their media outlets.

The tactic is a form of fear based control that conservative media has been working on since Nixon, and made into effect with the birth of Fox News in 1996.

Seriously. Nixon’s think tank conceived the conservative media outlet as a catch-all, exclusive source of news that as a primary function would steer conservatives to not trust other news sources.

They did this because they did not want another Watergate, where conservatives turned against Nixon because of hard evidence laid out by popular unbiased news, which at the time conservatives still were informed by.

The Frankenstein’s monster of a party that that tactic has turned conservatives into requires manufactured rage to fuel the fire. If the outrage ever simmers, you begin to see smarter conservatives recognizing what their party has become and it begins to fall apart.

So there’s your answer. It’s because the hate is necessary to continue the control. If you don’t believe me, turn on Fox news. There’s always the manufactured rage-of-the-day filling the air time.

Well let’s see.

China has publicly stated that they want and may have access to our power grids and other cyber-based infrastructure.

China effectively snuffed out a democratic regional government in Hong Kong because “it had too much western influence”.

China actively filters western internet content from its citizens.

China collaborates with Russia and has floated the idea of providing weapons to continue their war.

China was caught putting backdoors in their hardware to spy on western countries, resulting in the ban of Huawei products in the US.

China pushes apps like TikTok to surveil and influence young people in western countries.

China constantly holds military operations with the threat of taking Taiwan by force, with the undertone being that they will bottleneck the production of processing units to the western world.

China isn’t exactly our ally…

Removed by mod

It’s ironic that you should bring up not having nukes being dangerous because of the US, given that the entire reason Russia is upset about this is because Poland wants to use US nukes as a deterrent to the very real threat of Russian invasion.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Fair enough

Unpopular opinion incoming:

I don’t think we should ignore AI diagnosis just because they are wrong sometimes. The whole point of AI diagnosis is to catch things physicians don’t. No AI diagnosis comes without a physician double checking anyway.

For that reason, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing that an AI got it wrong. Suspicion was still there and physicians double checked. To me, that means this tool is working as intended.

If the patient was insistent enough that something was wrong, they would have had them double check or would have gotten a second opinion anyway.

Flaming the AI for not being correct is missing the point of using it in the first place.

That’s true, but games exist already where people can host their own servers. Pc gaming is kind of like the sandbox of platforms. Other major consoles solved that problem by sunsetting their free services so that you can’t just go play an existing online game for free on their platform.

It would be a gargantuan task to sunset free online connectivity as it exists in pc gaming today.

Honestly, I don’t think it’s that simple. Console online services get away with making you pay because the system is locked and you don’t have a choice. Pc gamers can host their own servers, and if steam ever becomes so anti consumer as to charge for access to your library, competitors will rise and the market will balance.

I figured that was the case, but I don’t know any of it, so I didn’t know better. Thanks for clarifying.

I work in maritime, often alongside Indian counterparts who speak both English to me and Indian to their ship mates.

Yes, they do speak Indian just as fast. Yes, the way they speak English has a lot to do with the cadence of how they speak their native language.

As far as the flow goes, I’ve noticed that Indian does flow better than English just listening to it, but I don’t know enough of it to make that observation with any credibility.

Guarantee that the line of reasoning here is

We can stop the inevitable fact that people aren’t going to buy our shares by pushing them on the most chronically addicted users of our platform and disguising it as a premium exclusive offer

I mean, who else is susceptible enough to the sunken cost fallacy that they would pour actual money into reddit? The answer is the demographic that’s already put in a substantial amount of investment in the form of time spent on content creation.

To those people, they might very well bite because it means their useless, time consuming hobby finally might become a source of income.

It’s honestly an intelligent business move by reddit, even if it’s scummy as fuck and ultimately setting up their own best content creators to spectacularly fail and lose a ton of money when the shares tank.

Reddit still goes public. Reddit still pays their CEOs obscenely before they jump ship. Only the creators lose.

At least we live in an age where you can find out what happened relatively easily. Imagine seeing that in the 1500’s