Blueberrydreamer

joined 1 year ago
[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, that is exactly what happens in the vast majority of cases, and almost certainly what's going to happen here.

That's not to undercut how shitty a practice it is, it mostly serves to discourage and dissuade people from trying to sue in the first place.

Yeah, things that are different often have similarities. The logical fallacy comes in extrapolating those similarities into incorrect conclusions

The ocean and the sky are both blue, so sky must also be liquid.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which they're obviously going to need after walking the 2,000 miles to the Canadian border...

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Believe it or not, Canada also occasionally has floods that kill people and leave thousands without power for days at a time. Not to mention the wildfires that continue to escalate every year. We're all struggling with climate change and how it's affecting natural disasters.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 9 points 1 month ago (5 children)

No you aren't, you're using a record shattering disaster to try to make some really fucking stupid point about how vague 'other countries' are somehow much better than America.

Disasters happen everywhere. Get your head out of your ass, you usually can string together a decent point, but this is just idiotic.

"It also seems to me that if we only tell men to never "pursue", but do nothing about the "hard to get"-behaviour, then men who follow the new instructions or script will be left with no chance to meet someone. "

I was with you 100% up to here. Women are well aware they don't have to 'play hard to get' anymore. This has been a huge cultural shift over the last 70 years, acting like only mens behavior is changing is naive at best.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 171 points 1 month ago (45 children)

It is definitely bullshit, but your employer isn't a winner here either, they're also paying out $600 a month for your $1200/month health insurance.

The real problem here is why the fuck does health insurance cost as much as housing in this country?

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Read my comments further down. Your party affiliation is whatever you decide it is. There are plenty of reasons to register, vote, or support candidates contrary to party affiliation. That doesn't make you 'not party X' unless you decide you are no longer supporting party X. It seems pretty simple to me.

Living in a deep red state, it's the only chance I have to cast a vote that matters. Not just the presidency, but most of our state and local politicians are decided in the Republican primary. Half the positions I'm talking about literally run unopposed in the general election. So I'm going to keep voting for the lesser evil and doing what I can where I live.

The same way I define if someone is gay, christian, or whatever other personal label, I ask them. If that's not an option, I'm not going to make a judgement based on random shit.

This guy was a complicated person who doesn't seem to strongly identify with either party, obviously Hannity is full of shit, but that doesn't mean we should lose sight of nuance in our reality.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 1 month ago (5 children)

That's moderately useful for statistics purposes, but that's all. It does not mean every individual person who registers as Republican believes in Republican values and votes for Republicans. Nor is it a complete list, plenty of states don't require registration for primaries so there are lots of people who don't bother declaring either way.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 14 points 1 month ago (12 children)

That's really a terrible way to make that assessment. I'm registered as a Republican in my state so I can vote in their primary, but that doesn't reflect who I actually support.

view more: ‹ prev next ›