I joined it because "Midwest". To be frank though. Local posts are in the 10s a day. I never see them unless i select local only. I've seen a fair bit more left position represented than would seem representative of the Midwest. Not that it's a bad thing. There is an instance pinned post about the administration standing with the protesters. Which again isn't specifically a bad thing. (I'll look at the discourse inside later) I see screechy hyperbolic posts about "genocide Joe" getting generally down voted. So I can't make any real comments about any strong vibe. But no. Not all of us are coping with severe head trauma like archcomrade.

I think it's safe to say he may just be loud, obnoxious, and perceived as being more representative than they are. Due to how inactive the rest of us seem to be.

I'm an anarchist / social libertarian. None of these candidates are mine nor do I agree with much of anything they have to say. Unlike you. I'm simply more mature and can acknowledge that one of the two is going to be in office next year. And I understand pragmatically that one despite their flaws is worlds better than the other. Me not voting isn't going to make anything better. In fact it's likely to make things worse. Therefore I am morally obligated to try to make sure the best possible outcome happens. And I'm not comfortable with just sitting back virtually signaling like so many around here do. Those like yourself.

Military police? Absolutely. China's police are in service to the state much like military police. It definitely tracks.

Germans making excuses to hate innocent people. You making excuses to hate innocent people. How is a different?

You said it yourself. You don't know what you're talking about here. And despite your continuing ad hominem's and antagonism. I will take one last moment to point out that the use of the term is scholarly and meant to be taken in context. And not colloquially or in layman's terms. It was no more man-made than the dust bowls were in the US. Or any of the other droughts and famines throughout the rest of the world in the exact same times. Saying they were man-made is like claiming that all global warming is man-made. It's not completely. But man is making it worse. But we are also in a natural global warming trend. Context is important. Eldritch is 100% of correct in this instance. They've correctly stated multiple times the human activity made it worse. Which is what the scholarly consensus is. Their only major mistake was engaging those who were disingenuous, smarmy, and or bad faith. Same mistake I made

Also, it's not what I think. But thank you for telegraphing your bad faith. The people who wrote the software stack. Literally have stated many places many times stated the reason directly.

I'll side any day with someone passionately espousing the truth, over someone who calmly lies

END ENGAGEMENT

1. For someone uninterested you sure are interested.

2. Their argument was not adhominem. Wow! They did call out the other person for misrepresenting facts and being disingenuous/ bad faith. But that's not on the same level. One of the mildest ad hominem's possible.

3. At this point you are as guilty as anyone else about the very thing you're crying about.

4. No scholars do not agree that the dust bowl or any of the famines in Asia or Europe were man-made. Nor have they ever stated that to be the case. As Eldritch said. They were absolutely exacerbated by human actions. But we're not man-made.

5. The platform you are crying on exist for the very fact that Reddit is heavily right wing leaning. You are wildly wrong.

Stands just out of frame waving hands

Now hear me out here. This old tony, best Channel. Or greatest channel?

The same bill bar that said the Iran Contra investigation was illegitimate and people involved were being treated unfairly/ Reagan's attorney general? That Bill Barr? Of course In fairness he never did turn stoolie on that crook Reagan. So I guess this is progress? That or it's just exponentially that much worse.

Yes. But generally it takes long-term constant exposure to the thing they think they hate. In order to override the indoctrinated or programmed in misconceptions.

What do communists and socialists have to apologize for? To be clear I know what you are hamfistedly referring to. But it isn't "communists" or "socialists".

It's because as a solid minority. That is often hated in the places they once had jurisdiction for good reason. You generally don't get the chance. Or if you did, it would close you off in a tiny little Echo chamber that's already far too strong. And I say this as someone who is supportive and open towards communism and abolishing Concepts such as private property and replacing with personal property. But I am sanctially against ml communism.

I absolutely think there can be a discussion about whether or not Vladimir Lenin's Legacy on the whole was neutral. He definitely did some good things for russia. Though those same things were happening around the world regardless. So it is impossible to say that they wouldn't have happened without him. But it is possible to say absolutely that a lot of death destruction and brutality were enabled by him. And his ideology single-handedly setback discussions of all left-wing Economic Development for a century or so. Those defending Stalin Mao or even Xi today. Well I don't have anything diplomatic to say about them.

The ongoing litigation against the company begs to differ. Also didn't Musk step down as CEO of Twitter a while back? It seems his tangential bullshit has quite an impact. I'll be honest I think the people actually working at Tesla do their best to try to moderate his unadulterated fuck ups. But they're not safe from it and neither is anyone else who does business with them.

It's not even remotely racist. One cannot be racist by simply pointing out an actual verifiable fact. Beyond a lion's share of CEOs and owners are disproportionately white. Especially when it comes to media companies. And that isn't a racist thing to say that simply an observation. To say that only white people should be CEOs would be raised. You are grasping at straws. Basically seeking and excuse to be outraged. Would it be racist for me to say that most slaves in America were and still are black? Because it's a verifiable fact. Not all were but most were and still are.

I agree you never actually ask the question. Though if you were ever to be honest you would have asked it of yourself. But you aren't being honest. You are just going around the screaming racism at facts you don't like. Quite childish.

> And that’s irrelevant. Racism is racism no matter who does it, and defending racism is still defending racism.

Racism is racism yes. But what you're pointing out isn't racism. You are accusing him of racism for pointing out the long-term impacts of The United States long and continuing history of racism. That is a completely different thing. And it is pretty disingenuous of you to imply otherwise. Further if he is part of the group you're accusing her of being bigoted against. That is a pretty silly thing to imply. And I have to say you are in wrong here.

> Why don’t you first explain what white people specifically have to do with the media chasing ratings. Would black-controlled media not chase ratings just as aggressively? Are non-white people more moral on average?

He already did. Things like slavery, segregation, redlining, and discrimination much of which does still get seen today. Explains it handily.

And then why did you go on to throw up all those strawmen? None of that was anything he ever implied accused or even addressed. It simply doesn't have anything to do with the discussion. Those are all non sequiter.

Perhaps you should answer your own question. Why is it that white males are so overrepresented in such positions. I think that's the much more pertinent and interesting question to ask. And you have not answered that.

> And that’s irrelevant. Racism is racism no matter who does it, and defending racism is still defending racism.

No it isn't. Naturel conservationism is about conserving nature political social conservationism often generally just shortened to conservatism is about conserving and preserving political and social power. Nothing more nothing less they are identical just about different topics.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz still exists and is a Democrat. And I think another thing people have issue with. Is that while it's understandable that Sinema and Manchin exist and are horrible. Democrats seem to most often use that as an excuse to not even try. Republicans try and thankfully often fail to do horrible things. But they try. It's one thing to say you support X. It's another to be seen trying to support it. Democrats talk the talk, but most can't walk.

While that's true most people are unaware of the places actual role. In the United States at least in the police are not there to protect or serve you. They are there to protect the property of the wealthy. And not much else. They can and will kill you with impunity if afforded the chance. We need to completely reform the police. Because the problems with them stem far far deeper than their simple gang behavior. And that is a sad truth. The police are off the little more than a state or municipality in sanctioned gang.

Only if you don't consider the core tenants of capitalism. Clear cut it all burn the rest to the ground. What you missed, steal from its owner to sell it back to them at the highest possible markup. Move on rinse repeat. Fuck sustainability. Most of the LLMs have what they want. Reddit could burn tomorrow for all they care. It being around for others to use and train on only makes competitors to them which they absolutely do not want. Destroying Reddit is a win-win-win for them.