fishos @ fishos @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

749

Joined

2 yr. ago

You realize many guns can be made full auto just by filling down or replacing a single part and the spring, right? It's been an issue for DECADES. This law was just reactionary legislation and didn't actually impact mass shootings. It being gone doesn't really change anything other than one less law to enforce.

Does America have a gun problem? Yes. Does it have an ass backwards bureaucracy problem? Also yes.

Dude.... how fucking high are you?!?

That is some A+ delusional ranting. Or was that /s too somehow?

You're literally the one who said that since 1993 they have only had 6 months of actual unopposed power. You're literally the person saying "In the last 3 decades, the Democrats have only had the ability to do anything for a grand total of 6 months."

How the fuck isn't that an ineffectual party? Would you go to a doctor that can only help you for 6 months out of 30 YEARS? But somehow this is okay when talking about the Democrats? You're not immediately thinking "well what have these jackasses been doing this whole time?".

Cus you absolutely should. And if you're only answer is "well the Rs are better at it than them", you either have to change tactics or find another team. You've already admitted you're the losers.

Going back to the car metaphor: you're over here complaining that you could do so many things with your supercar, if only the Rs would let you have some gas. Meanwhile, there are electric supercars being built that don't need gas. A completely different avenue to take. Instead of fighting for gas, you just build the best electric supercar instead and outrun them.

The Dems are over here begging for gas when there are plenty of other parties building that electric supercar.

Hey look guys! In 30 years the Ds did a thing! That totally balances out the 100s of things the Rs have done in the same time!

You said it yourself "they're blocked from achieving their goals". The best supercar in the world is outrun by a toddler if it has no gas. I'd rather vote for a toddler than the guy claiming "we'll have gas soon. Just as soon as we convince the gas station to sell it to us and the bank to honor our card and...."

Who got what they wanted? Rs. Who lost what they wanted? Ds.

It's the same story over and over but you want to convince us that "this time it's different!".

Well, when you guys actually start getting shit done, I'll support you. But if it's "at least you're not voting for X", nah, go jump off a cliff. It's the party of doers vs the party of "we try really hard but somehow keep failing and our only idea is to blame the other guys".

Exactly my point. They have all that time and can't get it done because of the Republicans. Republicans got it done tho, didn't they? So which party holds actual power? So why should I vote D when they can only muster 6 months of actual power in the last 3 decades? Why would I think voting for them would matter at all? Even when elected they're eunichs. Thanks for proving my point.

Remind me what the Dems actually get done. They CLAIM to be progressives, but oddly they always seem to get stopped. They had how long to codify row vs wade into law and they didn't. Republicans swooped it away in seconds like it was nothing. So which party actually gets shit done when they're in power? It's not the Dems. They're incredibly ineffectual while the Rs just run the board.

You can say all the nice shit in the world, but if you can't actually get anything done, you're worthless.

Honestly at this point, the smartest move Dems could make is voting R. Infiltrate the party that actually gets shit done from he inside and steer them differently. Fill the R party with so many progressives what we move the Overton window back. But that would take concentrated effort and the Dems don't have the stomach for dirty games, even if those are the rules that need to be played by now.

Nah, some of us just aren't delusional and see how both sides are ineffective, ignore their constituents, corrupt(look at the stock trading of any politician for an example), and a whole host of other problems. Some of us want a party we can actually support, not just "the lesser of two evils". Itd be nice to have a candidate that you actually want to vote for on their own merits.

But nah, just paint us as whiny conservatives trying to trick you, not your fellow Democrats who are fed up with the shit show we've been fed our entire lives. This is one of the most pathetic Democrat Defenses: "if you don't agree with us, you're really a smelly conservative!". Nah, I just don't agree that you have the ability or desire to actually make things better. And I'm not gonna keep a broken system on life support just for your comfort. I WANT the system to collapse because it's already a mockery of what it should be. If it collapses, we either go full authoritarian and stop pretending we're not(so at least we're finally honest), or maybe, just maybe, a different voice can rise up for once.

Either way, better than voting for Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich and continuing the same broken system for another 100 years.

For all the people down voting me, does the following sound familiar? "Election happens. Told Vote D or a R wins and everything will be worse! Elect a D. They can't get anything done because the Rs prevent them. Rs proceed to win next election and completely change major laws on a whim. Ds continue to complain that they can't stop the Rs". So why would I vote for a party that openly admits they can't get shit done? The entire Democrat playbook is "The Republicans wouldn't let us". Fuck that bullshit. If you can't see it for the scam it is, you deserve this bullshit. It's a party of eunichs. It needs to die and be replaced with an actually progressive party, not another shade of R.

So basically "people stopped giving them attention, so people stopped faking them". Crazy to see that some conspiracy's follow supply and demand curves.....

Honestly, I feel like being a Luddite and everytime someone shows art from now on, critique the ever loving hell out of their process.

"Did you make the brushes yourself from sheep you raised? Did you grind the pigments from plants you grew yourself?"

Art is amazing, but artists are some of the most delicate people. Their entire career is, in a way, a showcase of themselves, and if you take any part of that away from them or judge it, they become incredibly hostile and take it deeply personally. But literally the same kind of criticisms they're making now are taught in art history about previous advancements. It's just the same fragile egos afraid that they're not as special anymore.

Exactly. If some dude came in and said he joined a band in 2019 that most people only recognize from the 50s, I'd think he was crazy too.

Fyi, math and science is philosophy. Science is how philosophy started to actually get answers to the questions it was asking(the scientific method) and math is one of the languages it did it through. The Cult of Pythagoras was a group that believed all answers could be found through numbers and math.

Philosophy helped birth both of those fields.

Exactly. This is just an ad disguised as outrage bait.

Because we're being wise enough to question if this might have unintended consequences. For example, it might just shift the problem elsewhere and cause more severe draughts for someone else. Just a hypothetical to point out why people might not be immediately onboard with this.

Tho, fun fact, California has been doing this kind of stuff since at least the 60's. It's called cloud seeding and we've had numerous programs running. They just never got much attention. But technically, the chem trails conspiracy is based in a bit of truth. It's just not every airplane, but it's happening. A quick Google search will give you tons of government pages about it. It's not a secret.

While I get the desire for outrage and backlash, a generous reading of what he said would be something like "In the past, making music meant needing access to numerous instruments and equipment. Today, you can create the same kind of music with a cheap PC and some programs."

He's not attacking creativity or saying your time isn't valuable. He's saying the barrier to entry has dropped dramatically to the point that almost anyone that wants to create content, can.

Look at any medium and notice the wide array of tools now available to the average person. You can do Photoshop and video effects using entirely free programs for the most part. Or paying a fraction of what you'd have paid in the past for less features.

Under that reading, he's absolutely correct.

But yeah, Spotify sucks, I get that. They don't pay creators fairly. Absolutely. Don't disagree with that.

Blame the raking of the leaves. No leaves in fall means no place for the eggs to be laid and no place for the larvae to grow. It's another casualty to grass lawns. A "clean" nature is a place where nothing has room to thrive.

We think we are able to. Prove we aren't just fancy biological computers. No one has proven what consciousness really even is yet.

If the quote was "a million microbes", maybe you'd have a point. But it's monkeys. Our closest ancestors. What we are one step removed from. And y'all trying to act like monkeys are robots and were transcendent beings made of energy or some shit. We're animals, just like them. Slightly smarter, but animals. We are the monkeys.

If no free will, no intention. It's that simple. In strict determinism, every action, thought, feeling, whatever, was predetermined at the moment of the big bang by the starting state and physics.

I'm absolutely saying that all of humanities creations are "coincidence". Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't make me stupid. I know what I was describing.

You assume intention. Fallacy of free will. Whoever wrote it, you would claim had "intention". But given enough humans just faffing about randomly, one will eventually think up and write down "Hamlet". It's the same, you just want to ascribe higher meaning to it because it's human.