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/)P
Posts
0
Comments
655
Joined
11 mo. ago

  • I always find it telling when people blame the voters that couldn't stomach voting for genocide, rather than blaming their candidates for chosing genocide.

  • Maybe. As a buyer, I've had a few things never show up. Not stolen or anything, the tracking info says that they never showed up. But eBay still refuses to give me a refund.

  • You mean the other side that has been building up and supporting these systems that keep them "powerless", even when they have had power? The same side that keeps capitulating and trying to "reach accross the isle"?

  • I did read your comment. I saw you say that my examples didn't count, but you didn't give a good reason why they shouldn't.

    Do you think 4 people are a lot?

    No, those were just the ones off the top of my head. If you look up the data, you'll see a lot more.

    Do you think a person from a city council is a good example of that wast amount of progressive voters showing an mass?

    No, I think that's a good example of leftists voting, when a leftist candidate is on the ballot. You know, the thing that we were talking about.

    Do you think a progressive candidate losing popular vote in primaries twice in a row is a good example of this abundance of progressive voters you're trying to convey?

    No, which is why I explained that he got screwed over.

    For someone who is accusing me of not reading your comment, you sure don't seem to know what I wrote in my comments.

  • So your argument is "Nu uh. The people who continuously get more votes don't really count" ?

    lol, k

  • Yes they do. Leftists get votes all the time. Sanders, AOC, Sawant, Mamdani, etc all get tons of votes. Go look at the numbers.

    Sanders lost the primaries because the DNC openly screwed him over, not because he didn't get votes.

  • Leftists are also voting, when they have candidates and policies on the ballot. But both parties are pretty openly against the leftists.

  • LoL, the guy who was in severe mental decline? The guy that openly lost the debate? The guy that had massive poling against him? Sure thing, buddy.

  • As opposed to the ghoulishness of supporting the bombing of kids? It was pretty obvious what the right stance to take on these topics has been.

  • Plenty of other countries have primaries in that short of a time frame. It also wasn't a secret that Biden wasn't qualified, and was going to have to drop out waaaaaaay before he did.

  • As opposed to the party that did it's best to alienate the voters it claimed to represent? The same party that openly lied to and gaslit it's voter-base?

  • It's going exactly how we told the Democratic leadershp it would go, if they kept running bad candidates and bad policies.

  • She was shoved down our throats, not chosen by the voters.

    If I remember the polling correctly, a lot of people viewed Bernie favorably. He even polled better than Trump in the Red states.

    But almost nobody viewed Harris favorably. They only tolerated her.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • I feel like The Dragon Speech is relevent here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBrj4S24074

    Overall it's a fantastic speech that is well worth a watch, but I found the relevent parts here: https://www.erasmatazz.com/library/the-journal-of-computer/jcgd-volume-6/i-had-a-dream.html

    Suppose that, instead of giving a lecture to 170 people as I did at the conference, I were to meet with each of them individually. Suppose I took one person off into a little room and there we had an interactive conversation instead of an expository lecture.

    ...then my partner would be involved. The juices would be flowing faster, his mind would be going a mile a minute, and he’d learn a lot more, wouldn’t he? From my point of view, I’d be getting my point across a lot more effectively, wouldn’t I? But the problem was, there were 170 people in that lecture room, and only one of me, and if I used the interactive method, I’d still be conversing with individuals. The expository method is so much more efficient.

    And that is the nature of the problem. The interactive conversation is effective, but the expository lecture is efficient...every communicator has been forced to sacrifice effectiveness for efficiency -- until now. Because now we have a technology that changes all that. With the computer, I can take my ideas and express them in the form of algorithms, and then I can code those algorithms in a program, and put that program on a floppy disk, and then we can mass produce that disk. We can make millions of copies of that disk and spread it all over the world so that millions of people can play my game. They can interact with my ideas. Because they are interacting, I achieve effectiveness. Because we are mass producing the disks, I achieve efficiency. This is the revolutionary significance of the computer. It allows us to have both effectiveness and efficiency.

    It's been many years since I've been in a classroom, but I feel like we could and should have a highly advanced system for individualizing education in a way that works with most learning styles.

  • Did it? All of the laptops I've gotten in the past 5 years still have those ports. But I don't buy Apple stuff.

  • Like this?

  • What is the gain? What is a single gain you think they have milked from their users?

    But nobody pays for Firefox? Do you mean the "recommended pages"?

  • It's always amazing to me how people will blame those that couldn't stomach voting for a pro-genocide candidate, instead of blaming the candidate for being pro-genocide.

  • No, but his polling that was better than Clinton in red state supports the belief that he would have won.

    Also, it was rigged, Bernie sued the DNC arguing that it was. The DNC pretty much admitted it as their defence:

    "...the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts."