Signtist @ Signtist @lemm.ee

Moved to /u/Signtist@bookwormstory.social

---

Read more

Posts

4

Comments

783

Joined

2 yr. ago

But you're skipping over the fact that ground is the first floor you're on. I get that digitally it makes sense, but the floors are named for human comprehension, not mathematical or computer science arrays. If someone says "it's on the first floor" and you're walking in on a floor, there shouldn't be any confusion as to whether it's on the first floor you walk in on, or the second floor you walk to, called the "first floor."

Kinda weird to have a floor 0, though, right? People outside of computer science generally start counting at 1. Like I said before - the first floor you step on is the first floor. To say it's the 0th floor would make me think it's a hypothetical floor that doesn't exist, which is usually what 0 signifies.

Never understood how ground floor and first floor aren't always synonymous. If the ground floor is a floor, then how could it not be the first of the floors?

Eh, it's just removing unnecessary words as most headlines do. "Cheney says Republicans (that are) against Trump but (are) not backing Harris (are) ‘not (doing) enough’"

Eh, I can understand your outlook when it's something done specifically to post it to the internet, like when people film themselves giving money to the homeless, but the guy pretty clearly looks happy to have his pistachios; I'd imagine the story is real, and this guy just wanted to share it, even if there was a less altruistic undertone of getting positive attention online.

And at the end of the day, there's a net good to doing things like giving people gifts and giving homeless people some money to help them out, even if done entirely for the sake of internet popularity. I like to focus more on whether the person being helped is thankful for it, and if they are, I just focus on that rather than the guy trying to make himself look good for doing it.

My groups usually think of them as a powerful fey creature who sometimes just whisks people away for an indeterminate amount of time, only to bring them back later.

It's working great now, thanks!

A lot of cops are so high strung that you essentially have to pretend you're having the time of your life while interacting with them - any nervousness or annoyance is taken to mean that you're potentially a violent criminal who could kill them at any moment.

Just the realization that a woman holding a pot of hot water could hypothetically use it as a weapon, however unlikely it was in this scenario, was enough to make him instinctively shoot with only minor notice that still did nothing to prevent him from killing her even as she began cowering and apologizing.

This is the culture we've allowed the police to build in this country; the job is dangerous, and they're only human, so they believe they should be forgiven for being scared regardless of the situation, and should be forgiven for taking drastic measures while they're scared.

I mean, most of them probably became judges specifically to gain the power to choose who needs to follow what laws - as well as the profitable position that puts them in for rich criminals who don't want to go to jail.

🧅^- anion

Voting is about choosing good candidates well before it gets pared down to 2 options. It's about choosing a good local government, choosing good representatives, choosing good senators. If the only thing you care about is the President, then you'll never have a good pool of options from which the parties will pick a presidential candidate. They're not on our side - it's our job to force their hand with a deck stacked with good candidates. But only the people who pay attention to politics well before election year get to have a say in stuff like that.

Okay, and how do you plan to get them into the hearts and minds of around 50% of the population in the next 2 months, when the vast majority haven't even heard of her? It's not enough to have someone who could be a good president, you also need to get people to vote for them. If you want most of the population to vote for someone, they need to be aware of them as a viable option years beforehand.

I agree that the 2 choices are pawns of the rich, but even if every person who knew about Claudia voted for her, she wouldn't even get enough votes for her to make the news, much less win. We're talking about tens of millions of people voting in unison for an election win to happen in this country. At this stage in the game, there are only 2 candidates with that kind of draw power. If you want to focus on the 2028 election (assuming there is one, since there clearly won't be if Trump wins) to get a 3rd viable candidate on that ballot, that's a noble plan, but by now this election's potential winners are already down to 2.

Voting isn't about closing your eyes and saying "I want someone good to win!" It's about assessing which people might actually win, and voting for the one that best aligns with your views, however loosely. It's about strategy. If you want to change that, you need to build national presence in the name of your preferred candidate, and you need to start years ahead of the elections. Big changes don't happen at the ballot, they happen during the campaigning stage and beforehand. If your candidate isn't on the news every day leading up to the election, most voters won't even know they're an option.

Yeah, people are acting like this is up to chance - rich people throw money at their problems, and so long as someone is willing to spend their time catching it instead of doing their job, it works. It's going to work. The 5 year sentence is for poor people they want to get rid of, not for rich people they want to profit from.

As I said, yes, but also, let's work together to stop the slapping...

I put my alarm far enough away that I need to get up to turn it off. By then I'm already out of bed, which is otherwise the hardest part for me by far.

To be fair, if we did raise minimum wage, they'd use it as an excuse to raise prices again. We still need to get higher minimum wage of course, but we also need get much tighter restrictions on corporations, or any financial ground we gain will be lost shortly thereafter under a million excuses to bleed the extra money out of us.

Reporting them for being toxic a dozen times has done jackshit, mods themselves agreeing with everything I’m saying here hasn’t either.

This is more the behavior I was talking about. You can't force the mods to do anything, all you can do is try, and continue to do so even as it continues to yield no meaningful results. Just like those pointing out the tragedy happening in Gaza understand their incessant posting isn't likely to change anything besides building solidarity with those who are suffering. But again, when people agree with the message behind a post, they aren't going to join you in brigading against the person posting it, even if he may be posting it for unscrupulous reasons.

At the end of the day this post didn't get anyone to vote for Trump, but it got people to think about Gaza just a little bit more, which is a good thing. If you want people to add their voices to yours crying out for OP's ban, you need to draw attention to it in places where they actually did something people will get upset about.

You can't change someone else's behavior, you can only control your own. The results are the ends, but the means are more important.

The fact that I said you need to keep trying even as it doesn't work clearly flew in one ear and out the other for you.