I don't think you paid attention in religion classes lmao

The inner battle of not issuing a final warning, duh. Truly a vicious war.

The part about voting is pretty simple logic.

In a voting system where the one who gets majority of the votes wins, the other votes don't really have an impact. Of course they are part of the race to win, but outside of that, what do the other votes do? Nothing. In other systems those votes would cause a second round to happen, but in the US system they don't. Those votes are just... gone.

Sure, you could argue that it's about "sending a message", but... why? Why do this now while the Project 2025 looms over the US if the Republicans win? The Democratic Party won't change before the elections and no amount of threatening to vote for 3rd party will change that.

The part about "if you don't vote for Biden, you vote for Trump" is not literal. It's more... abstract if that makes sense. Since if you vote for parties that have no realistic chance of winning, it means that a party that has a chance of winning doesn't get that vote and the party you least want in power is one vote closer to win the election. This logic goes for both Democrats and Republicans. If a Republican votes for third party that has no chance of winning, their vote metaphorically goes to the Democratic party, since the Republican party will be one vote further away from the Democratic party. Hell, this same logic, to some extent, also applies to other systems, but not as much as the US system.

So unless you are predicting Jill Stein to be making history and winning as a third party, a thing that hasn't happened, that vote won't affect the elections and the party you least want in power is just one vote closer to be winning.

In a two round system, your vote would matter more, since your vote would be affecting everyone's chance of getting an absolute majority of 50% all votes. And since everyone, but your chosen party, is one vote further from the 50% mark, a second round has a higher chance of happening.

I was definitely more active on Reddit, since it had the niche subs I wanted to discuss on. Lemmy has more "generic" content, since it doesn't have the user base to grow those niche communities.

Could you elaborate, since I have absolutely no clue what connections significant enough you are making to say this.

Before agriculture people were like that, but as people settled down it created a class system. Then people got more powerful and such and states began to be created.

During this time (Around 4000bce and 400ce) feudalism wasn't really a thing, but after the Western Roman Empire fell around 400ce the power vacuum it created lead to the creation of feudalism. This was because of several factors, but I can't remember them all right now.

But money did exist even before the creation feudalism, since the Romans and the Egyptians did have money. Even in Mesopotamia currency was used. And even if money didn't exist trade was still being done with valueable things like resources and other commodities, which lead to those things becoming a de-facto currency.

So basically pre-agriculture was like tribes that shared their stuff and such, but after agriculture not so much. Of course this isn't a one-answer-fits-all thing, since there are always exceptions.

Sorry for the long ramble. I just got really into writing this thing. Also I could be wrong on some things, since I am writing from memory.

Let's hope we have better luck next time I guess.

They have brought up some good points, but the good points they make are over shadowed by the whole genocide denial and "dunking on libs".

The following example is not meant to represent hexbear users, but to show an example of how I could see it.

Think of a fascist who brings up some good examples of modern problems in about 1/10 of their messages, while the rest are talking about how Mussolini was actually good, since he brought up the living standard in Italy and expanded the public sector. And when someone brings up the bad things Mussolini did, the fascist just says "It's clearly western propaganda".

You wouldn't want to read their messages, since they are full of this fascist apologetic garbage, and the good points they bring up are ignored because of their other opinions.

It doesn't matter how good willed your opinions are if no one wants to associate with you.

The factory must grow!

I would say I lean towards not believing, but I am open to other ideas. And if god did exist it really wouldn't change anything for me. I would just live as I normaly do

But wouldn't that invalidate the usage of that word in the circles that use it wrong, and not for those who use it properly.

Like if there was a hypothetical town where the word "good" was used to describe bad things, would that town invalidate the word "good" for every single town? Of course it wouldn't, it would only invalidate the usage of that word by the ones who use the word in question wrong.

But that wasn't said in your original message, was it? In your original message you were implying that by the USA spending more money in their military to spread their influence, would make the US government a tankie(?), thus invalidating everyone who uses the word tankie.

Also if your point was that the word tankie lost its meaning by usage in invalid contexts, why did you mention the USA? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to explain that it lost its meaning by the usage of it, and not by the actions of the US government, since the US is not the only nation who has people who use the word tankie?