Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)A

argon

@ argon @lemmy.today

Posts
0
Comments
93
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Betrayal

    Jump

  • normalizing child abuse

  • Deleted

    Pixelfed #11 in Android app store

    Jump

  • You seem like a very relaxed person

  • A lot of Americans are Googling 'what is oligarchy?' after Biden's farewell speech

    Jump

  • Is an Archy a small version of an Archer?

  • It's so funny to see XiaoHongShu discover how much westerners have been propagandised

    Jump

  • I never understood what is bad about "working 2 jobs". (I don't live in the US.) Is two 20 hour jobs not the same as one 40 hour job?

  • Walgreens CEO says anti-shoplifting strategy backfired: 'When you lock things up…you don't sell as many of them’

    Jump

  • In Germany, pharmacies look like that today.

  • Removed

    The Secret of Universe

    Jump

  • Indeed, since freely speaking had consequences.

  • Removed

    The Secret of Universe

    Jump

  • they never said you are completely free of consequences

    Who are "they"?

  • Removed

    The Secret of Universe

    Jump

  • american free spech has limits, it really only protects you when criticizing the government

    "Free speech only when talking about the government" is very different from "free speech".

  • Removed

    The Secret of Universe

    Jump

  • I should have been more clear that I'm not talking about a nazi rally in any arbitrary context, but specifically one in nazi germany.

  • Removed

    The Secret of Universe

    Jump

  • That doesn't make sense. If someone at a Nazi rally shouted "actually Jews are alright" and got arrested for it, would you say that's compatible with free speech? Because while they might have experienced consequences, "free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", so since they were able to say what they intended to they had free speech?

  • No matter what fork of Firefox I use, or extensions I install (like jShelter), I have a unique fingerprint.

    Jump

  • This website is a lot more specific about the data used for fingerprinting.

    It also lets you see whether two seperate visits can be correlated (or if your fingerprint is sufficiently randomized each time).

    https://abrahamjuliot.github.io/creepjs/

  • Removed

    rebels with a cause

    Jump

  • Anti-migration is just a facade they use to hide their racism

    How is that contrary to my point? Many people are anti migration and so an anti migration party was founded.

    What the reason for being anti migration is, be it racism or something else, doesn't matter here.

    how many parties support [stopping weapons trading with Israel]

    That's why I explicitly said "popular" topic.

    The reason anti-migration found it's way back into the Bundestag is because the voters care about migration policies.

    The reason Israel arms deals aren't talked about much is because most voters don't give a fuck about what happens in the middle east.

  • ich🖤iel

    Jump

  • Die AfAfD

  • cough cough GOLLUM cough cough

    Jump

  • unapologetically

    He did apologize

  • Removed

    rebels with a cause

    Jump

  • Our leaders are a mix of three different parties because not all German people have the same opinions.

    Yes, our leaders are a compromise between left-leaning voters and right-leaning voters. Respecting more people's votes makes the country more democratic, not less.

    If your question is about whether the people have free choice or if they can only choose one of the six parties currently in the Bundestag, the answer is the former. Little story:

    Under Merkel, all German parties moved to be more migrant-friendly, until even Merkel's conservative party (the most right wing party at the time) was largely okay with migration.

    However, there are many anti-migration voters in Germany. So what did they do? Did they say "oh, we only have these five options, guess there's no way I can vote against migration"? No, they founded a new party, the AfD, to be anti migration. This party quickly got into the Bundestag and rose to be a major party now.

    Upon seeing the popularity of anti-migration policies, some of the other parties now shift torwards more anti-migration policies, too.

    The German people have plenty of choice, and if a popular topic is ever not represented by the popular parties, it can quickly be made represented again.

    (The reason I was assuming USA btw, is because another comment mentioned America. Also the USA is an easy example of a less democratic democracy.)

  • Removed

    rebels with a cause

    Jump

  • How is the German democracy hardly democratic?

    Because abolishing democracy is not an available option? Is that what a system needs to be considered democratic?

    I understand why USAmericans think of their system as hardly democratic, but that's not the only type of democracy that exists.

  • Removed

    rebels with a cause

    Jump

  • Those powerful individuals, however, were chosen by the citizens. (Assuming the system you're talking about is a democracy.)

  • Resolutions

    Jump

  • I assumed that it was given that I exclude the example (with the implication of it not usually being the case for people considering suicide).

    no social life

    I struggle to imagine a scenario where you actually have no chance of rebuilding a social life. What are you, a lighthouse keeper living far from any city and getting your groceries airdropped?

    You may not be in a situation where rebuilding a social life is trivial, but 50 years is enough time to learn how to find friends even in sub-optimal situations (e.g. at a grocery store). It is enough time to weed through different people until you find some that match you.

    Even looking at anecdotes ("We met on WoW")

    You seem to be focusing your points on the lonelyness crisis, which is a real issue. Spending a decade without a social life is terrible, and I understand why someone who arrives at this point may consider their future to be hopeless.

    But while it may be understandable that a person considers suicide in this situation, it is not a rational (as in: long-term optimal) decision. A person in this situation may be exhausted, may be at or past a breaking point where they do no longer find the strength to keep on trying, and make the decision to commit suicide.

    This decision derives from a temporary, emotionally charged state. (I consider fatique an emotion here.)

    The rational (as in: long-term optimal) decision would be to keep trying. To keep going on until it just so happens that you exchange a few words with a stranger. Until it just so happens that you get to build foundational social skills, easing the possibility to approach others. Until it just so happens that you get an opportunity to talk to someone, and get to know them. Or maybe one day, out of a wind of confidence (or desperation) you approach just the right person. Or maybe that person approaches you. Or maybe you take to more unusual manners of getting to know people, that you find to work for you.

    And once you found a start, you can build off it. You can extend your social circle, find a partner, start a family, and live happily ever after.

    Quit the bs, I've been trying for a decade and it doesn't work

    You have many years to go, and once you find a ledge to stand on, they will all be worth it.

  • Resolutions

    Jump

  • There is no "rational" reasoning that leads to the conclusion that you'll never be happy (unless you're in an actively harmful situation, such as a torture prison or with an extreme chronic disease).

    You cannot tell whether you'll be happy, you cannot know who you'll be ten years in the future.

    Claiming that you won't ever be happy simply because you haven't been happy so far is short sighted and narrow minded.

    Suicide is always unreasonable.