Is everybody else using 'rhetoric' wrong or am I the one off base? Afaik, it just means 'speech', or maybe 'eloquence' in certain contexts, but I've never seen it used to mean 'lie' until jd opened his mouth and everybody else followed along.
Just to clarify, 50,000 years is 50 millennia. If you meant millions if years, the term for that is mega-anna. And eons for billions.
Other than that, I more or less agree. Humans have developed technologically much faster than we've been able to evolve/adapt to the changes we're creating, and the stress from that is growing. Occasionally I wonder if it'll prove too much for us in the end.
Afaik, there's currently no instance-neutral way to link to a post unfortunately. As for the link icon, that's used to turn part of a comment into a link without posting the whole url for space and/or aesthetic reasons. Like this.
Also, it looks like there's still an issue on the Lemmy-UI with that url. I wonder what's up with that.
Something about hyperlinking a link twice seems to have messed with it, at least on my end. I'd suggest just posting the link as is without the formatting.
This is such a bad idea. Voting already achieves what they are doing - increasing the visibility of "good" content and minimizing the visibility of "bad" content through crowd sourcing. 1) Banning people for using that system is seriously off base, and 2) turning that system into outright bans from interacting at all is way too far.
This is an automatic system to rigidly create and maintain echo chambers. Really hoping this doesn't spread.
*Also also - administering bans based on how and where people interact with content, even as mild as up or down voting, is a dangerous choice. Utilizing a purity test of who's allowed to interact where isn't going to make Lemmy a better place.
It is absolutely neutral. You're mixing up neutrality with equivalence. Just because a neutral party reports on something that's clearly incorrect doesn't mean they are sponsoring or supporting it over something else, nor is it saying they are equally valid claims.
The purpose of neutral reporting is to have a record of what happened, not to judge it right or wrong. Unfortunately, sometimes (a lot of the time, nowadays) noteworthy events involve unpleasant and/or malicious actors, but we can't just shun them from history because their purposes are ignoble.
A "Scarlet P" as it were isn't defensible, but a name-only system seems ripe for abuse. Unless the employee can keep track of every student, all it takes is a greedy and/or cruel student to use someone else's name and they don't get a lunch that day.
Best method, imo, is free lunch for every student. No fuss, no muss. That children are held responsible for the economic welfare of their family (and there are people fighting to keep it that way) is atrocious. Just feed the children, easy as.
If you're not going to make a point related to the comment you responded to, why comment?