This is a silly distinction you are trying to make and it serves no purpose. And I don't even agree it is a real distinction... The act of deciding to gamble doesn't in any way mean the payoff or losses are anything but luck.
Stoneykins
joined 1 year ago
It is intentionally, intellectually dishonest and obtuse to pretend that condemnation of systemic problems resulting from unfair biases for/from certain demographics is as bad as the systemic problems in question.
Ew you got some politicalcompassmemes on your post.
Otherwise good tho
Solution is simple, community should turn any suspiciously product focused thread into an advertisers nightmare of filth
Then the ads will just be the ones with the comment sections turned off
You and people who hold beliefs like yours should just pick a new name for yourselves, I've tried to convince family members of this for years. Let the jerks have the name they tainted, pick a better name for your beliefs, and get out of the way for people to condemn the institution of Christianity for it's actions.
You shouldn't feel responsible for them. You should just let them suffer the consequences of their actions and get outta the way.
Well if there is no practical point in our communicating, with our senses of morality being so alien to each other, could you at least avoid doing it anyways for the sake of being so insulting to me?
I don't need that condescension, thanks, I'm all topped up.
Even if you are technically right, you are morally wrong. They should be allowed to register in that league, and if they weren't then the coach lying about their gender was the correct and moral thing to do.
Crazy to watch people twist themselves in knots bending over backwards to try and excuse sexism.
But I don't even think you are technically right. All those quotes stink like excuses and BS.
Not to be rude but this is an oversimplified and incorrect view of voting and is the exact kind of mindset I am against.
If you try to insist non-voting is somehow support for a specific candidate, what does that say about people who can't vote for personal/health reasons? If someone working poverty wages, unable to get the day off to vote, can't get their vote counted, are they somehow a bad person?
Additionally, although less significant, I can't consider it morally wrong, ever, to vote third party. Strategically wrong, sure, it often is, but the point of a vote is to choose, and I can't blame someone for using their right to choose to be an idealist rather than a strategist. And honestly, in an election like this with so much frustration towards the major parties, 3rd party has a better chance of winning than usual... although I'm sure that is a stressful and unpleasant thing to hear if you dislike third parties.
That's the basis of what the spoiler effect is and why it's a problem to consider, yeah.
I just think it is better to be clear about how it works and what it means. Non-voting and third party votes being described as explicit support for trump has some troubling implications.
I just want to point out a thing said in this, that I have seen said hundreds of other times, which is not correct.
Due to the spoiler effect, a leftist vote for a third party candidate is essentially a vote for trump
This is incorrect, most charitably interpreted as an exaggeration, but it is said so often I think people are misunderstanding the spoiler effect.
The spoiler effect is real and it can suppress a victory of not-as-bad candidates if they have a popular opposition, but it is never as bad as "essentially voting for trump". It is equivalent to not voting at all, at worst.
And it is also a simplification of the situation to imply that the spoiler effect only affects democrats. There is a similar thing going on with conservative third parties.
"than I thought you were"? I'm not the person you were talking to before.
What is your actual point? Why do you think it is important for you to argue that "actually gambling isn't pure luck"? And what, in your estimation, is "pure luck"?
The way I see it people are talking about specific phenomenon, and how they have entirely luck based outcomes (ex like the lottery), and you are trying to increase the scope of the context of the discussion to, in this example, include people who do not participate in the lottery, to try and argue that phenomenon does not have entirely luck based outcomes. But you haven't proven your point, you've been socially obtuse and attempted to derail the conversation from where it was because you have a bizarre point you want to make.