Or, you know, if you read the prompt before sending, look at the question after you’ve selected it, or just read your own work once. This method will only work if students are being really stupid about cheating.

Tbh my only gripe with this post is the assumption that because a man is explaining something to a group of women, it’s automatically mansplaining. Although I guess it’s a joke so whatever.

The second one made me dislike them, but the fifth one was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Transferring files that way actually seems really useful, I did not think of that

I don’t think etiher is implied here, but sure, I suppose it can be a conversation starter.

Thanks, that’s one of my main goals in life.

I can definitely see the point if it’s literally all there is in the feed, but if you just watch things from people you disagree with from time to time, and the algorithm picks up on it, there’s bound to be a few things in your feed that might “look bad” if they are used to draw conclusions about your worldview from someone who doesn’t know you.

Next time I talk to a girl at a party, I’m gonna ask to see her browser history “because it’s a good test for red flags.” Judging someone by what they watch or read is stupid. Judging someone by what YT thinks they would like to watch is even worse. I know this is completely besides the point, and it is just a meme, but judgy behavior like that irks me.

Yes.

No, they don’t. It’s bad that someone buys this to begin with, and yeah it sucks that they’re taking up two parking spaces, but why direct your hate towards a person who actually seems to have a better attitude than 99% of people driving similar vehicles?

Why?

I think this is the nicest way to go about parking a vehicle like this. I might think it’s a bigger vehicle than necessary, but this is not the person who should primarily receive hate for their choice of car.

People have to be able to question the motive of content without being accused of “stirring the pot”. Personally I really appreciated that the comment you replied to was posted, as it led you to reply to it, so that I could get more context and information.

Unless, you know, they got unlucky and got sick anyways.

Fair point, albeit a different one from the one I was making.

Oh, I’m not blaming you at all, I’m just commenting on the article

Misleading title. Not incorrect, but it is based on what the source of income is, it is not about how rich you are relative to the rest of the population. The title makes it sound like if you make a certain amount of money, your tax rate is lowered. Alternatively, it sounds like the richest Dutch are evading 12% worth of taxes. But neither of these are true statements AFAIK, and either way they aren’t made in the article, so the title is misleading.

Edit: Changed “the top 1%” to “the richest Dutch”.

I agree with that, it’s important to consider what’s being advertised and in what way.

I’ve seen their ads in Sweden before IIRC. They don’t seem to be very common though. Why don’t you like that they’re advertising?

Them redefining anarchism is precisely the point I was making. It’s not impossible for there to exist different definitions of the same term; you don’t have to agree with them to acknowledge their existence. And from that point of view it’s not necessarily a self-contradictory philosophy, it’s basically just fantasy capitalism. As I understand it, they are basically defining anarchism as opposition specifically to the state (as defined by its monopoly on violence). Rights to “life, liberty and property” are to be upheld by “decentralized” (and I use that term extremely loosely here) private enforcement agencies. Imo this is both unrealistic and undesirable, but it isn’t inconsistent on a philosophical level, which tends to be the level most an ancaps argue from, since their ideology is incredibly impractical and idealistic.

On a more meta level I agree that it’s just an alternative “cooler” version of libertarian capitalism for the edgier crowd, but that’s not the point I was trying to make.