Hell, I had a few members tell me that I was part of the evil capitalist elite because I had a job.
Anytime a person claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link to it, they are lying or misrepresenting what happened literally 100% of the time.
Right, because you're doing zero analysis of the economic or political structures involved and playing fast and loose with terminology.
You can go to archive.is and put in the url of a news story you want to read in the second box and it will usually let you bypass the paywall.
China has official death estimates so I don't believe that they deny that anything at all happened.
Now, it’s considered patriotic to protest poor government decisions.
Is it now? Would you say the student protests over Gaza are considered "patriotic" in mainstream American culture?
"Everyone who disagrees with me is a secret agent"
Funny how China and Russia combined spend a tiny fraction of what the US does on the military if the US only has it for defense.
In this hypothetical, because I refuse to give him the satisfaction of cooperating in any way. If he knows that he can get me to do things by threatening to kill babies, then I'm just encouraging him to threaten to kill babies.
I'm not trying to "talk tough," there are situations where I would cooperate with a hostage taker, but murdering babies is a red line, for me personally.
If you want to understand, I can explain fairly simply.
Consider this thought experiment. We are getting $100 to split, but only if they can agree on how to split it: I get to make an offer, then you choose whether to accept. If you announce that you'll accept whatever deal so long as accepting is better than the alternative - that is, that you'll act "rationally" - then the rational thing for me to do is to offer you only $1, while I get $99. Researchers have actually tested this game in real life, however, and it generally doesn't play out that way. Why? Because the numbers don't tell the whole story of what you're giving up by accepting a bad deal. Once you've demonstrated that you'll accept a deal like that, then you're communicating something about your behavior for all future deals. It may be rational in the context of a closed experiment, but for the general case, our minds know better than what may appear "rational" at first glance. If you tell me, "I will refuse anything less than $30," then you are openly declaring that you intend to behave "irrationally" and trying to convince me that you will - and it would most likely produce better results than behaving "rationally."
The moment that you say, "My only condition for voting for the democrats is that they be better than the republicans, who are unimaginably horrible," you have sacrificed every ounce of bargaining power that you could've wielded. So the real calculation is not "Who's better between Trump and Biden," but rather, is the difference between Trump and Biden worth sacrificing all my bargaining power?" And for me, the fact that Biden is supporting genocide makes that decision very easy and straightforward. I'd rather at least try to leverage what power I have against genocide altogether, rather than supporting the "lesser genocide." If I cannot set even something like genocide as a red line, then I am very clearly communicating to politicians that they can count on my vote no matter what they do, and they have no reason to ever consider my political priorities.
I knew they were transphobic, but this is ridiculous!
There are people in Palestine who want a genocide in Israel, and people in Israel who want a genocide in Palestine
Only one of those is actually happening
If they were optional, your boss would fire you for taking one.