It's my primary but Google unfortunately is often a fallback. And Google is tracking the shit out of us these days. Certain obscure searches don't work well on DDG, sad to say.
MAGA-level conversation.
There's an absolutely ancient meme of someone selling a mirror or TV or something. Circa 2000 ish.
It's not a hobby. It's not subjective. Something is either good or bad, in total (some real number value on that axis, to be specific). The kind of thing you said is literally a cop-out of confronting that. The need to put some "ist"/"ism" label on it just avoids dealing with the question entirely. That's not the definition of pacifism, what I said is the framework to situationally decide whether pacifism or something else is more ethical.
WTF is with the asinine left/right meter at the bottom of the article?
The mentality where you think people "deserve" things, I think it's just irrational. If your goal in politics is to do best by all, then you're working against your goal. If that's not your goal, then it should be. Wishing harm on anyone is literally a last resort when there is no preferable option and where more good comes out of that harm than bad - otherwise it's an ethical negative. It's alarming to me how few people seem to have thought through that logic.
Not true, they also ran on supporting genocide and deporting immigrants.
5-HT2A serotonin agonists like psilocybin are known to induce neuroplastic changes - this is most evident to users in the form of rapid cognitive schema formation (since we actually experience that happening), but it stands to reason that it happens throughout the nervous system.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.724606/full
It's definitely unfortunate that there was such a backlash against this research in the 60s/70s.
What you wrote is gone. From what I remember of it, if that's what you were trying to say, you needed to word it better. To be generous.
What are these "sides" comprised of in your mind? Who specifically are you accusing of being a "terrorist"? In Palestine - the entire population? The ruling political party "Hamas"? The militarized subset of it, the "Al Qassam brigades?" Or only the specific members thereof who engaged in war crimes at any point - the few of that group who are still alive? What definition of "terrorism" are you using - the "using violence to influence political opinions" which characterizes every government that's ever engaged in war? The Palestinian people have had their country stolen and have been corralled off from the surrounding world by a military occupier in the tiny subset of it that remains - they have a legal right to self-defense, and the very existence of "Israel" as a state has come at the cost of the absolute violation of their sovereignty and human rights, solely to impose the imaginary, invented sovereignty of an immigrating colonizing population, that was hoisted on them against their will by another colonizer (the British). Using the word "terrorist" used in this context is insane. It seems to hinge on the relationship of Hamas with Islamism, which isn't even absolute, because it's a pluralist, "big tent" party. Beyond there, what, it's based on them having darker skin or being Muslim, which is what that word evokes for the more brainwashed Americans anyway. Rather, armed resistance in their case - as much as we'd all like to avoid violence of any kind - is legally sanctioned self-defense against a militarily aggressive entity, who has their territory and people under military occupation.
You need to educate yourself more on this topic and clarify your thinking.
Sounded like you were saying decrease tip % on account of price %. What you wrote is ambiguous I see. Could also be interpreted as "I tip 15% now and the tip percent should not increase."
The facade of having souls to their supporters is the only thing holding them back.
Man, Corel Linux looks like a vibe. The box looks familiar but don't think I ever used it.
Brainwashers and brainwashees. Brainwashers are traitors.
Paul also pulled out of his ass all the insane bullshit that modern evangelical Christianity is based around. "Yeah, uh, God hates gays, and women, and also loves the Roman Empire that killed Jesus."
Guy's dead, no evidence either way, so asserting that's wrong is about as baseless as asserting it's right. Things like that are far from unheard of.
Because all their living expenses also increased
At the same time, “what the population votes for is what the population gets” ignores that we are often only presented with crappy options to start with.
It does not ignore that, rather it explicitly takes that into account.
The caveat to my statement would ONLY be "so long as we're using this system."
Please focus more on accurate logic.