GeneralVincent

The first article doesn't say he's not fascist (unless I missed it somehow or it got lost in translation. I'm an English only pleb)

And I found the second article (in English 😅) since your link has it paywalled. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/29/trump-rally-fascism-politics

I understand the argument, but don't find it overwhelmingly convincing. They even start the article mentioning how well respected historians believe he's fascist, as well as former White House staff.

I'd argue that just because he's not been totally supportive of violence doesn't excuse the times he was promoting violence. And I think his actions show he would be more openly supportive of violence if he knew he could get away with it

Because crimes should be handled in a criminal court case with real consequences, not a civil case. But that's not likely to happen.

So if someone did sue them, and against all odds they won, and the money they received somehow properly compensated for their loss (i.e. a loved ones preventable death), then the company that extracts billions of dollars from Americans every year would lose a couple million. The company would be unaffected and have no meaningful consequences for their willfully unethical behavior. We'd have to have thousands of successful lawsuits to have meaningful consequences.

That's not implied by their logic at all. Not every person is in a position of power like this CEO was, the majority of people don't have a job that denies people necessary healthcare, and many people will not make the choice to be unethical like this CEO chose.

I understand, and disagree with, the argument that vigilante justice is completely uncalled for but you're not doing your argument justice here

Pretty sure it means

Galaxy Nexus (the smartphone): Android (OS) Ice Cream Sandwich (OS Version) Guinea Pig (Test Subject)

(So the new Android OS version, Ice Cream Sandwich, is being tested on the Galaxy Nexus phone)

It's a bankruptcy auction, and he's bankrupt because he was sued by Sandy Hook families. Some of those families gave money to the Onion to buy InfoWars so Alex Jones is losing his platform and his money.

It sucks for him more than it helps him really.

Hold on, is the straight person arguing for the gays, and the gay person arguing for the straights?? (I'm pansexual and I think we should all just get along)

Honestly, yeah. She's been in government positions for decades and hasn't had any real scandals. The worst thing I heard was that when she was a DA, her department worked with the local police, and the police department had a lab tech that was stealing cocaine and was testing the product at work several times. And a judge scolded the police department and DA office for not doing a better job handling that issue.

She had a pretty decent record of good morals and making effective, positive changes. Unless there's someone I haven't heard

In the comic she isn't picking a fight, she is confiding in a friend her frustration that sometimes men can have fragile egos. That doesn't mean men are the root of all problems. The comic is saying that often criticism, no matter how small or in what context, can be met with an overblown reaction that derails any potential conversation and spirals into name calling and whataboutism.

It would be sexist to say men are the root of every problem, but I'm not seeing anyone claim that. Not in the comic, not in these comments, not in real life, really only in certain toxic Internet spaces. A woman pointing out a common problem they experience with men ideally would be met with self reflection, not deflection. It is not a lack of empathy from women, it is women not understanding why men struggle to identify an issue that seems so clear to women. And men not understanding why women would make a generalized statement that seems to criticize individual men.

But women are often talking about a systemic issue with men, not trying to personally insult individuals. And the deflection and insults that they often receive just furthers the frustration between sexes. You're saying that the issue would be prevented if women didn't say things that have negative messaging. I firmly believe that would make the issue worse, as the first step to fixing an issue is identifying it and facing it head on.

Men often have fragile egos. That does not make men evil. It is barely even an issue unless an individual man lets it define his actions. If a criticism from a woman doesn't seem true to you personally, congrats! You have self reflected and don't have to worry about it because she's not talking about you.

If it helps, I have empathy for you. I'm pretty sure I'm not cis so I don't call myself a man anymore lol but I had the same feelings as you do until a couple years after I met my wife. We had long talks and disagreements about the divide between men and women that form from miscommunication and misunderstanding. And I expressed frustration at the criticisms women often have of men. And she explained that it's not meant to insult, just vent from personal experience. That it's not a way to make men feel bad, not malicious or looking down on men. It's just an attempt to communicate an issue they see. And after a while I started to see how true that is. And then I realized I might not be a dude so it kinda was a waste of time lmao

Sorry about the wall of text, tl:dr when a woman is critical it's meant to express a frustration and communicate an issue, not insult or put down every individual man. If you're a man and hear criticism, it's not likely applicable to you. But it helps to self reflect and have empathy

So the people in cities should just be worth less when they vote? It's a federal vote for a federal office, everyone in the country should count the same.

The individual states already have their own powers which make sure the federal government doesn't make decisions that are bad for those states. And each county and town have their own governments that pass local laws.

I've also heard this argument so many times but I haven't heard any actual examples.

Wrong thread, this is postal workers withholding mail

Yes, they are not the same thing. That's what a comparison is. If you think it's a bad comparison, feel free to explain why you think so

What do you mean "doesn't like"? The federal government "doesn't like" citizens sending bombs in the mail, and they would deny you that, yes. I'm not sure what the point of your reply was, it doesn't argue against anything I've said. Sounds like a straw man.

There's a difference between individual mail carriers and the organization USPS or Canadian Post. And there's a difference between dislike and illegal. I thought we already established that, is that something you disagree on??