Communist

The only valid choice is 3, I want the full weight of the fork to be the tongs so they don’t knock cups over. 2 is TERRIBLE

Not really though, you can still see them from the other account, so meh

I hadn’t seen that before the change? I didn’t even know there was one.

But I don’t think that’s true at all.

No, not at all, twitter is not decentralized, with a lemmy instance, if you leave, you lose nothing at all. With twitter, you can’t take the content or your account

That’s a bad example because it got forked and it wasn’t an actual problem?

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the main dev(s) members of lemmy.ml[3]? So I can certainly see how differing political views could skew the development of the main branch of Lemmy.

People say this all the time but never can give even one example of a potential problem. Preemptive forking sounds insane to me. The notion that lemmy might enshittify because you don’t like their politics is also ridiculous when their politics are anti-capitalist… aka the politics that are least likely to enshittify.

Oh there will be a boom of… abandoned babies for the fostercare system.

I don’t see how, it’s covered by a good license, and if it did it’d be forked in an instant. Can you give a historical example?

It’s impossible by design. If an instance enshittifies people will just leave the instance.

Yeah hook me up with their number I’ll do it

your worldview is so black and white.

yes, lynching can be fine in some niche circumstances, like this one.

killing can be acceptable depending on the reason. most lynchings are horrible and evil, but this is an obvious exception.

when keeping slaves was legal, if some slaves rose up to kill their master, would that be acceptable? I say obviously yes, you would say “well what they were doing is legal so this is a lynching and therefore immoral!”

was the american revolution immoral? They murdered a lot of people! If someone is depriving you of your human rights, such as healthcare, killing is justified.

so no, lynchings are not universally evil. Killing is not universally evil. There are some universally evil things, but some evil things can be justified. Killing is one of those, there is nuance, and every case must be looked at individually.

Was there even a shred of a doubt that he wasn’t guilty of mass murder? Does anyone doubt that this person was in charge of this mass murder?

Is there even a 1% chance that he isn’t guilty of mass murder?

Beyond all reasonable doubt happened, this is no less legitimate than state-sanctioned violence. Again, i’d prefer the courts handle this… but this type of mass murder is perfectly legal.

The only question is, does this count as murder? and the answer is obvious, he’s killing people for more money, it should.

Lynching is bad, but there are exceptions for every rule, and this is an obvious exception. In this case, he killed to help save lives, so, there’s nothing wrong with that.

but this man hardly was the sole reason his healthcare company chose this policy

He was proud of it and could’ve done anything to prevent it. This company leads in false denials over all others.

You are blaming an individual for institutional issues

An individual at the top of an institution that does it with literally no remorse.

If he was not willing to implement them he would be removed.

Then get removed and work in another industry.

But this is hardly relevant, this is, from a legal standpoint, murder, and thank God it is, since no sensible person would want to live in a society where someone can just murder anyone because of ideological convictions and political goals.

No, in a sensible society what he’s doing would legally be murder, so, we wouldn’t have to do anything like this in the first place.

But from a moral standpoint this is, of course, still murder.

Justified murder, an act of defense of others.

We denounce the use of the capital punishment on the most horrible criminals, but when a CEO is murdered on the street, without trial, suddenly death is perfectly fine as a punishment.

He’s one of the worst possible criminals and deserved the death penalty. This country just doesn’t believe that mass murder is wrong as long as you’re making money off of it.

This is not “defense” of anything.

It’s a rejection of the notion that these CEO’s aren’t mass-murderers. They are, vigilante justice had to happen because there was no justice happening elsewise. If the courts were planning on doing anything, planning on doing a trial against this obvious murderer, then you’d have a point.

It’s not murder if you’re defending someone, this was a defense of countless against a mass murderer who planned to continue killing without remorse

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary

-Karl Marx

Seems more like mercury

I used mine all the time because I hate using bluetooth even though I have expensive bluetooth headphones, I have now cancelled you out

How?

i’ve used dvorak but I plan to switch to a charachorder

It’s incredible how often conservatives make the exact same mistake with data and never notice.

“More antidepressants now? People are more depressed, must be bacause they miss being our servants”

“More autism now? Must be those damn vaccines”

More x? Randomly assume goal you want is the reason and not increased availability and testing without checking.