Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P

PaintedSnail

@ PaintedSnail @lemmy.world

Posts
0
Comments
44
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Seriously, just stop (or use Linux)

    Jump

  • Not all of them anymore. Some control panel icons just throw you into the new settings app.

  • Windows 11 Notepad to support Markdown

    Jump

  • So why did the get rid of Wordpad?

  • Groomed

    Jump

  • That is a very embarrassed cat, and it looks like it just wants to slink away and hide.

  • Democrats will allow full ICE funding in budget bill

    Jump

  • That is a much more interesting response, thank you.

    I know very well that a politician is not required to listen to their voters. That is the nature of a representative democracy, and it has its pluses and minuses; but that's another topic. A politician will do what they want once in office. Sometimes they do it for their own selfish reasons, sometimes they do it because they know something the American public doesn't, sometimes they do things because they are weighing opposing agendas differently. That is why it is important to push for candidates that have principles that are the most aligned with yours. Then even if they are driven by their own selfish reasons, at least their actions are more likely to align with your desires.

    That's not to say that voters have no power at all. We got Trump because his principles (such as they are) aligned with a large enough portion of the American public that the Republic party thought he was their best chance of winning. Make no mistake that the Democrats DO want to win. Voters need to show them that a candidate whose principles are more left leaning is their best chance of winning. That is what the primaries are for. You will note that only two political parties even have primaries.

    I believe you have a misunderstanding that anyone thinks that having to choose the lesser of two evils is a good thing. It's not. It's only better than choosing the greater of two evils. The main point that I have been trying to make is that NOT choosing the lesser evil is functionally equivalent to choosing the greater evil, even if the choice made is to not make a choice.

    This is because there isn't a better choice; there is no "no evil" choice. Even not choosing is still a choice. Unless you know of one and would care to enlighten me on the specifics of that choice. So far, the only point I've seen you try to make is that not choosing is the best choice; something that I vehemently disagree with.

  • Democrats will allow full ICE funding in budget bill

    Jump

  • That doesn't disprove what I'm saying. That's just your feeling with no evidence to back it up.

    I have history to backup my claims. Yes, we've shifted right due to incrementalism because people on the right are more likely to vote, so it demonstrably does work. There's no reason we can't shift back if people who want change actually vote for it, rather than withholding their votes for a "perfect" solution.

  • Democrats will allow full ICE funding in budget bill

    Jump

  • That is reductionist to the point of obsursity.

    Republicans are demonstrably by more fascist.

    Not voting against Republicans keeps more fascism in place.

    Therefore, not voting only increases fascism. Voting for someone that can't win against the Republicans increases fascism.

    And before you say voting for Democrats also increases fascism, they are already less fascist than what is currently in place. Having anyone else, even a Democrat, in office will be less fascism.

    Vote to decrease fascism. Move in that direction. Not voting only pushes us toward more fascism.

    There is not choice available right now to remove fascism entirely. We must show politicians that they stand to gain by moving away from it. Not voting doesn't do that.

  • Democrats will allow full ICE funding in budget bill

    Jump

  • If we want to push things back to the left, we absolutely have to show support for more left candidates in the primaries.

    But if we don't show them that we're willing to vote, we're just going to get candidates that chase the votes of the people who DO vote.

  • Democrats will allow full ICE funding in budget bill

    Jump

  • The primaries are the key. Support the people who will oppose these issues.

    But as we saw with Bernie, the support has to be undeniable and actionable, or they'll just put in who they want anyway. This means that there is a non-zero chance that we'll end up with the usual kind of choices. Should we then support the candidate that isn't at least actively disparaging the law, or should we not vote and increase the chance of the party that is actively destroying things winning?

  • Democrats will allow full ICE funding in budget bill

    Jump

  • That doesn't answer my question. Who should we vote for that doesn't result in the fascists staying in office?

  • Democrats will allow full ICE funding in budget bill

    Jump

  • Who should we vote for otherwise? Every other option leads to Republicans staying in power, and they are the ones actually doing it.

    Don't vote? That's fewer votes the Republicans need to win, so they stay in power.

    Vote third party? That splits the opposition vote, and Republicans stay in power.

    And no, neither of those choices "teach the Democrats a lesson." It just drives them to go to the people who do vote, who are more right wing, so it drives everything further right.

    You want a more left wing party? Show them that the left votes and our votes have value.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • In theory, vacation time is supposed to be something you negotiate as part of your employment contract. Conservatives believe that market forces will balance out the needs of the worker and the company, as companies with bad employment practices will have trouble finding employees.

    In practice, that only works for high-demand positions with a small labor pool. Basically everyone else has no negotiating power because employers have a huge pool to pick from. Conservatives say employees can just go somewhere else to get a better job or go back to school (another topic), but that also doesn't work in when all the available jobs do the same thing.

    Basically, it's an extension of rugged individualism. It's up to the individual to take care of themselves. The fact that the landscape in which most people must operate doesn't allow for it is ignored.

  • Life pro tip for friends of pharmacists

    Jump

  • So a person should take the entire course of antibiotics that are prescribed to them. I guess I'm confused about why you said to the person who said you should take your entire course of antibiotics and not stop because of feelings is making false assumptions.

  • Life pro tip for friends of pharmacists

    Jump

  • Okay, so how does the average, non-medically-trained person know when the best time to stop is?

  • Life pro tip for friends of pharmacists

    Jump

  • Get fancy and use Vicks

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Just to let you know, that's a false rumor spread by fear mongers.

  • How about the digestive system?

    Jump

  • Shame on you for wanting to have fun in a meme post! Shame, I say!

  • How about the digestive system?

    Jump

  • But can you measure something that doesn't exist? Can the absence of something be something in and of itself? Is it the hole you are measuring, or the object around the hole?

  • Locked

    Agriculture uses 98% of humanity's land usage

    Jump

  • Not just native cultures. Very little of any animal goes to waste, from food to clothes to compost. If capitalism is good for anything, it's finding value in every part.

  • Firefox Will Ship with an "AI Kill Switch" to Completely Disable all AI Features - 9to5Linux

    Jump

  • If a person doesn't have any issues, then is it actually a problem they need to read up on and disable? Why is there any fault to be had at all in that case? Assuming everyone's use case is the same is also not an educated opinion.

    If individuals start having problems, the tools to fix them are there and it's on the individual to use them. If large swaths of the user base start having problems, that's Mozilla's issue to fix. Right now, any prediction of which way this goes is just a guess.