CheezyWeezle

lmao I’m guessing someone who doesn’t speak Spanish was told “we are out of ice, make a sign that says ‘No ice, no hielo, thanks, management’ and put it on the soda machine” and they just rolled with it phonetically

I got something stupid like a 96 on the ASVAB and I just told the first air force guy I smoked a lot of weed and I never heard from any military again lmao

It was tempting when they offered me to go right into a program to become a satellite operator starting off making $125k/year immediately after boot camp… but I don’t regret not taking that offer. Who knows what would have actually materialized, anyways. Probably would have been 6 years deep dreaming of hopefully seeing 6 figures one day while I end up managing logistics or something.

Um, what party do you think Bernie is a member of? He is pretty famously an independent…

? Does PayPal not allow this? PayPal has always called me “Praxis” lmao

Lmao you are actually incapable of good faith, probably because of how obviously angry you are hahaha

You are still trying to argue that your idealized theoretical version of communism is what needs to be accepted, but that a corrupted and condemned version of capitalism is what capitalism is inherently at its core. By your own standard, communism is equally abhorrent because of how it has been actually implemented in the past.

A company getting bailed out is not capitalism. It is socialism. A capitalist society implementing corporate socialism is a corruption of the core ideology of capitalism. I will agree that it is the end goal of corporatism, but corporatism is a corruption of capitalism.

And wow you really still don’t get the “no true scotsman” thing… I mean you probably do but once again, you are only putting bad faith forward. Since you clearly need it spelled out in detail, let me just copy this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on “No true Scotsman”:

The “no true Scotsman” fallacy is committed when the arguer satisfies the following conditions:[7][3][4]

not publicly retreating from the initial, falsified assertion

offering a modified assertion that definitionally excludes a targeted unwanted counterexample

using rhetoric to hide the modification

Oops, you accidentally did all those things. You never retracted your assertion, you modified the assertion with further qualifiers, and tried to downplay that further qualification. You actually pulled a “no true scotsman” on a statement about someone being a scotsman. It’s so on the nose that you MUST be a troll lmao

I think you may have read the wrong comment, because nothing you have said makes any sense in response to my comment. I’m not irritated in the slightest and nothing I have said even suggests that lmao

But please go ahead and project more

Capitalism is absolutely not functioning as intended and has 100% been corrupted… if capitalism worked as intended, then why have companies been “bailed out” from failing naturally under capitalism? Capitalism has failed just as much as everything else has failed, and has been corrupted by the people in charge just the same. Communism doesn’t work, Capitalism doesn’t work, nothing we have right now works.

And you literally still don’t understand the concept of “no true scotsman” lmao. It is also known as the “appeal to purity”. Let me be more clear:

If someone has Scottish ancestry, is born in Scotland, naturalises to Scotland, or is born and raised within largely Scottish culture, they are Scottish. It doesn’t matter where that person was born or where they live. To say that someone cannot be Scottish unless they fit your specific definition and criteria is the exact fallacy being referenced, and you actually just doubled down on that thinking that it somehow makes you not guilty of that fallacy? Wild.

Lmao what side are you on? Your entire rhetoric is equally critical of and applicable to communism. If communism is allowed to be viewed as an ideology that has been corrupted, then capitalism is exactly the same. You don’t get to cherry pick and say “you have to look at A with rose-colored glasses and you only get to accept the idealized version of it, but you must only look at the bad things that have come from B and don’t get to accept its ideals!”

Also you literally went full “no true scotsman” at the end, literally verbatim lmao. You actually just tried to say that one of the most well known fallacies is not a fallacy hahaha wtf is wrong with you

Why and how would the electronics in an airplane be melted? Airplanes are naturally a Faraday cage, and all the components are going to be EMF shielded anyways.

The only thing an airplane would need to worry about with a solar storm is the increase in radiation exposure, and even then it’s only relevant for the Flight crew who have limits on how much radiation they can be exposed to per OSHA.

Planes wouldn’t just fall out of the sky anyways lmao. Even if planes lost communications completely they are still operational flying machines. It would just be very difficult to coordinate planes landing at that point. I don’t know about the protocols, but I’m sure there exist failsafes to coordinate air traffic in the event of radio communication loss.

When you declare a genocide on a group of people don’t be surprised when they fight back.

So, to be clear here, you are condemning Israel here, correct? The ones who are actually perpetuating a genocide?

No, I read the “win/win” as listing there only being two possible scenarios. They are saying you either win or you win. “Win/win” reads as “win or win”, so there is your “either… or”, but even then you don’t need to say specific words to be able to imply exclusivity.

Example:
“You must be joking, and if not, then you are a fool” Notice how in that sentence I did not use “either/or”, yet I still implied only two possibilities? Well, that sentence is homogenous to the sentence in OP’s post. I just used “if/then” instead of “either/or”.

The post suggests that there are only two options in the scenario: they are either secretly trans, or they are a bigot trying to belittle and insult trans women. They don’t leave any nuance for a different option. Dare I say that they have a rather binary way of thinking…

I never understood this obviously toxic take… saying that a cisgendered male crossdressing MUST be trans or trans-curious is exactly the same toxic energy as denying trans women’s existence.

Are you folks really gonna say that, for example, Tim Curry is a closet Trans Woman? Because that’s the kind of thing being implied by that. Just let people do what they are gonna do and be what they are gonna be, leave your assumptions and judgements out of it.

Why shouldn’t you ever punch a nazi? Because you might get their nasty blood on your fist. Instead, you should use a baseball bat!

“When I voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party, I didn’t think they would eat MY face!”

Sorry, but you made the claim so the burden of proof lies on you.

Sources?

Most corporations are vastly reducing the cadence at which they replace hardware, given that new hardware lifecycles are much longer both in terms of reliability of the hardware and the performance compared to newer hardware.

This comment is a meme