As a person on the spectrum, I am not offended and endorse his statement. Please find a real issue to be offended about.
As a person on the spectrum, I am not offended and endorse his statement. Please find a real issue to be offended about.
I’m guessing the actual prompt was “Generate an image of raw salmon fillets in a river”, and the entire point was to meme the hell out of it. Here’s what you actually get if you do the test in good faith. No levitating, no raw fillets, just salmon in a river.
-Leonard McCoy, 2286
I must be way out of the loop. Aside from a brand of coolers, what does “shiti” mean?
I don’t work for the DNC and I’m not a boomer. I’m just a 30-something Bernie-bro who can read polls and knows Biden is losing EVERY SINGLE SWING STATE to Trump right now, and the numbers get worse every week as the cracks in the Biden facade become more apparent. And I really don’t want Trump to win.
Because after the last debate, where Biden stood slack-jawed and confused for 90 minutes and failed to fill most of his 2-minute answer slots or even complete most of his sentences, he DESPERATELY needs to prove to people that he can think and act on his feet.
In an effort to prove that, he’s made a series of teleprompted remarks and done interviews with preselected questions. He should be holding townhalls, but instead he’s taking softballs.
So instead of proving the narrative wrong, he is continuing to reinforce the widespread belief among voters that he is incapable of showing that he’s with it and is nothing more than a senile old man being abused by those around him so they can remain in power. Agree or not - that’s the perception and Biden is reinforcing it every day he doesn’t take real, hard-hitting questions on the fly without the help of a teleprompter or friendly audience/interviewer.
No. The solution is to dump Biden and try to get a candidate that can prevent that.
Didn’t Democrats control the House and Senate for the first few years of his presidency? Looks like they failed to use the time they had very effectively. Why reward lazy behavior with another term?
Biden could nominate three new justices to the court today if he wanted to.
Biden and the DNC knew that if he was forced to actually debate in an open primary, he’d be weakened as a candidate and would eventually lose to Trump. So they rigged the primary, hoped they could sneak a senile old man through without us realizing, and now they got caught.
The people in power are perfectly content to lose the cycle and try again in 2028. Newsom, Whitmer, etc. are all lining up to run against Trump’s VP next cycle since he’s term limited. And the reason Biden hasn’t been thrown overboard yet is that the other potential candidates haven’t decided if they want to throw away their carefully laid plans for 2028 to take a gamble here in 2024.
The only people that truly believe Trump winning in 2024 means there won’t be an election in 2028 are the most myopic hyper partisan Democrat voters, and they believe that because it’s a useful fallacy for the Democratic elite to have them believe. Because fear is the only motivator they have left at this point. But their actions clearly show that they don’t believe it themselves.
Pure copium.
Hold up. Are you telling me that 100,000 refugees already own homes? Be right back, need to go vote conservative real quick.
I’d start planning a move to the west coast so that your ‘side’ isn’t outnumbered when things pop off. Assuming you haven’t already made it out to Cascadia.
I’d rather let Trump win so that the Western states can finally have the motivation they need to secede and I can become a citizen of Cascadia and stop having to worry about all the nonsense in DC. And if the secession goes bad, the red states attack, and the fighting turns against us… I plan to sail up north to B.C. and request asylum.
Climate change already prevented me from ever considering having a family, so luckily I fit perfectly into the “disaffected military aged male” category that can risk it all in the hope of a better future. I pity the rest of you who would choose complacency and the path of least resistance over doing what’s right.
Sometimes the best thing that can happen is for things to get worse, because that can prompt you to end your complacency and make the changes you should have made long ago. When people of good conscience are forced to support a literal genocide because of how broken our system is… I think we’ve reached that point.
I bought my first house in 2009 - $125,000 on an income of $45,000. I even got a first time homebuyer credit of ~$8,000 to help make the purchase easier.
I make a little over $200,000 today, and I’m completely priced out of the market. I doubt I’ll ever own a home again and am currently living in a rundown old sailboat.
I’d take 2008 over this economy any day of the week!
A “DEI” is a person whose hiring was motivated (in whole or in part) by the desire to improve recruiting metrics tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion as opposed to solely based on their suitability for the role.
Let’s just say that, hypothetically, the OP didn’t hold a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli viewpoint. In that case, would they have to lie and add those disclaimers in order to be “well mannered”?
My point is that anyone should be able to ask a simple question about why South Africa are the ones filing this case at the ICJ. It shouldn’t matter what their overarching beliefs are, nor should they be required to submit their liberal bona fides before they are allowed ask the question.
That’s not good manners, that’s an echo chamber.
Only on Lemmy would you need to add all of those disclaimers before asking a legitimate question.
I asked a question the other day that gave the appearance that I might sympathise with a conservative viewpoint, and it was the most downvoted post of my entire life within 30 minutes. Let me reiterate - I was downvoted en masse for asking a good faith question and not accepting the Democratic narrative as a given. Folks instantly assumed I must be asking the question with an (conservative) answer already in mind, and dogpiled me for it.
Ironically enough, there was one good faith reply that answered my question and resulted in me ultimately agreeing with the Lemmy-approved viewpoint. But I almost didn’t get that answer due to the amount of bad-faith responses and downvotes I was swamped with.
I tried this once. Went to the dog park, chatted up a girl over a period of a month. I finally got the courage to ask her on a date, and she said yes! The date (dinner and a local concert) went great - we ended up back at my place and I can honestly say it was some of the best sex of my life.
Then she ghosted me and we never talked again. That was 2017, and I’m still not over it. Thanks for the advice though.
The average black person cares way less about having a black president than the typical white Lemmy user assumes they do. Only the most off-the-rails liberals support allowing race to be a factor in hiring decisions. Hell - even far-left California outlawed affirmative action.
If you’re picking a president based on race, you are implicitly racist and therefore part of the problem.