Bezos deletes 'LGBTQ+ rights' and 'equity for Black people' from Amazon policies
Bezos deletes 'LGBTQ+ rights' and 'equity for Black people' from Amazon policies
Amazon's modifications mirror similar actions taken by other major companies after Trump’s election victory, including Meta, McDonald’s, and Walmart
I have one outstanding order that is already out for delivery. Once I get that, I'm closing my amazon account. I'm done. Buy nothing. Vote with your wallet. Edit: account is closed. get bent Bozos.
You're viewing a single thread.
I tried to save yall by voting for Kamala
I did my best by not being born in America
I think the vast majority of Americans on Lemmy did the same.
We did but somehow they still want us to thank them for that being the start and end of their actions.
I hope they don't hold their breath on getting a thank you from everyone
I've never asked for thanks nor have I seen even a single Lemming ask for thanks for their vote.
I have. Go into a comment section on political shitposts
I'm not going to go out of my way for this conversation. Send me a link, otherwise I'll keep an eye out during my usual browsing.
Also, I think the fact that the comments you claim that you saw are in the political shitposting community should be a sign for you.
I wasn't really going to go find sources on that either and I realize the origin tells a lot, but every group in here is basically shitposting for something. It's not an unheard of subsect.
But, I was just continuing the conversation with where I have seen people acting like they have done the Biblical miracles for voting and that they therefore can't be asked to do more. I tend to notice it cause my obvious aversion to it.
same here homie, same here.
"I tried to save you from the empire by voting for the empire"
Honestly, fuck Americans and their insane discourse. Absolutely psychotic, delusional, brainwashed bullshit. You have NO fucking clue what is happening on this planet. This society is a plague on the world, just unleashing an endless series of massacres, and none of you even understand why.
The fact that you would vote for someone complicit in genocide, without even figuring out WHY, and actually think you did something GOOD. My fucking god. And nobody reply to me with this "Trump would have been 5% worse" bullshit, because I'm done hearing it. You are not the heroes of the story. You've been indoctrinated to support "global military empire lite" with your fear of "global military empire original". You sacrifice the lives of the victims of the empire for your illusion of democracy and quality of living, that never existed in the first place. Stop fucking patting yourselves on the back.
Brooooo, it's not like any of us were thrilled with Kamala either. But in comparison to Trump I was excited for her.
Trust me, we all get that both options weren't optimal, but we don't get an optimal option. We get 2 options, and one is usually better than the other. If we keep picking the better one, over time things improve.
People like you tend to protest by not voting at all, or voting third party (which is essentially the same under our current structure). If we had compulsory voting, I highly doubt Trump would have won.
The problem is it’s not a choice between good and better, it’s a choice between bad and worse. We’re hitting the point where the lesser of two evils choices are hitting critical mass.
Aside from not taking a firm stance on Israel, I didn't have any huge problems with Kamala. I figured she was just holding back on criticism since AIPAC has the power to essentially end careers. That's probably too optimistic.
"Figured", "probably" - these are not the levels of certainty you should have on your conclusions regarding a genocide.
Considering I was absolutely certain trump would make it worse, I was okay with mild uncertainty.
Let me rephrase it. You are not meeting the standards of research required to effectively participate in a democracy.
Actually based take.
Lawl, you don't know me, don't pretend to.
There's enough to tell.
Trust me, we all get that both options weren’t optimal, but we don’t get an optimal option. We get 2 options, and one is usually better than the other. If we keep picking the better one, over time things improve.
People like you tend to protest by not voting at all, or voting third party (which is essentially the same under our current structure). If we had compulsory voting, I highly doubt Trump would have won.
No single drop of water blames itself for the flood. There are 240 million eligible voters, who all have the choice, collectively and individually, to vote for ANYONE. Somehow you are all completely incapable of blaming the entire group for its continual decisions to vote for war criminals and genociders. Rather, you completely invert the blame onto those who DON'T vote for those people. Literally, you ignore the blame for the only people actually responsible, and instead blame the only people NOT responsible. Given the massive efforts to brainwash the public regarding this political system, it's nearly impossible to not see this as a product of brainwashing as well, because this self-defeating pattern completely neuters any attempt for real political change.
By the way, the Senate just voted 99-0 to confirm Marco Rubio. Including Bernie Sanders, Van Hollen, Booker, Warren, every Democrat. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00008.htm Explain that to me once you get done explaining how the Democrats are really the underdog opposition.
Trust me, we all get that both options weren’t optimal, but we don’t get an optimal option. We get 2 options, and one is usually better than the other. If we keep picking the better one, over time things improve.
Also, no, they fucking don't. The system presenting you with these manufactured options continually clamps down its chokehold on the world as you continue on in your delusion of political choice. It absolutely boggles my fucking mind how after a year and a half of open genocide you think there's some kind of autonomy between the Democrats and Republicans.
I'm still upset about what they did to Jorgensen in 2020. If they hadn't retroactively banned her from participating in the debates she may have actually had a chance at the seat.
So, the choices were donvict or Biden/Kamala. That's it. You don't have to like it (and I certainly don't), but that's just reality.
Your depiction of "the choices" is factually incorrect. The population had the ability to run with any candidate whatsoever. You "chose" (or rather, were handed) two war criminal psychopaths to vote for.
You are in a prison of your own creation.
Remember what happened with Bernie Sanders 8 years ago?
He lost the primary fair and square. And because unlike many of his voters he could acknowledge this. He worked with the party to make those primary elections even more democratic in the future. Bernie actually got shit done. Unlike the people performing outrage he doesn't feel on his behalf. Actively working against Sanders accomplishing anything through the Democratic party. Because they didn't like the parties primary election rules which were changed because of Sanders.
To borrow a phrase from Gandhi. I like your Bernie. I do not like your Bernie bros. Your Bernie bros are so unlike your Bernie.
I'm talking about throwing everything against him when he was the best for the job, unlike Hillary.
We had a chance to put Jorgensen in 2020 and we blew that too. Could have avoided this whole mess if you ask me. Probably the last actually qualified candidate I've seen since probably FDR.
That's a good joke.
Someone doesn't like genocide, geesh.
How about "I'm the only one of you actually judging this godforesaken system objectively, by its merits, which are nonexistent".
Deleting LGBTQ policies is nothing compared to the slow drum of global warming that might wipe us out as a species.
I tried to save y'all by advocating for third parties, who would actually bring in the same level of EO you're seeing from Trump but instead to focus on education, military cuts, and moving towards green and nuclear
You’re a fool then. Voting for a third party has the exact same effect as not voting, and in this election, that effect was also supporting Trump. Get your head out of the fantasyland.
People like you are part of the problem.
Voting third party in a two party horse race is a fool’s errand. Especially if you voted for known Putin stooge Jill Stein, who was only running to steal away votes from Kamala Harris. She knew she didn’t stand a chance at winning.
Voting "third" party only fails because the great mass of fucking morons who insist on voting for the genocidal, global empire terrorist pieces of shit currently in charge. You can try as hard as you want to deflect that blame, but it will never wash off.
Voting third party this election directly lead to a Trump win. “You can try as hard as you want to deflect that blame, but it will never wash off.”
Only in terms of "but this would have happened if you voted for something else", the logic of which equally applies to the sum of Harris voters voting for somebody who, simultaneously, (a) had substantially less votes in the final outcome, but also (b) was so extremely evil that they're complicit in a genocide. Or is that too hard for you to wrap your head around.
I like your sentiment, but a two party system inherently uses third party votes as spoilers. It is common for the dominate party to support a third party to peel away votes from their major opposition.
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=6y_K1yvlvDPNxm70
One solution to this is ranked voting. Of course many of our politicians recognize this and have already passed laws at the state level to bar ranked voting under the pretense that it is too confusing for voters.
Nailed it - I'll consider a 3rd party vote on equal-footing once we have ranked/ranked choice voting in place. Right now, I think there's a higher probability for one of the two parties to consider this so in other words... it's going to be a while...
Whatever party is in power has a lot to lose from ranked voting and nothing to gain. This will make this reform very hard to pass. I live in Alaska and we have ranked voting that narrowly avoided a repeal this last year after passing the previous year.
There is no legal enshrinement of a "two party system". Whoever the public votes for wins. The public's self-defeating mentality is the problem.
Not explicitly. Just effectively. Between first past the post, which naturally evolves into a two party system. And the electoral college which enshrines it. At the national level actual, independent 3rd parties are an impossibility. And they know it.
Theoretically matter could spontaneously coalesce into a Boltzmann brain before a 3rd party could win a national election.
FPTP doesn't naturally evolve into a two-party system. Cultural predispositions cause that. The electoral college does not enshrine it, it - sometimes - hands the elector votes to the majority winner of the state, and some states even have legal pledges to follow other systems. There is no impossibility. I will repeat myself for the fiftieth time in this thread, THE PUBLIC'S SELF-DEFEATING MENTALITY IS THE PROBLEM. The public TELLS ITSELF a third party is an impossibility, the public DOESN'T VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY. You will resign yourselves to slavery until you figure this out.
Duvegers law and people who actually study poly sci disagree. And I'm more inclined to believe someone with evidence and proof over someone like yourself. Who has nothing, spouting magical thinking BS.
"Duverger's Law" (you misspelled it) is a principle, not some deterministic physical law. I studied polisci at college, thanks. Read your own link. First sentence - "TEND to emerge". Not "always emerge". There's an entire section in the article named "Exceptions". One of those exceptions is IN the U.S. Learn the difference between "tendencies" and "absolutely certain physical laws", this is basic logic/math.
This kind of sloppy thinking is so common in the U.S., I swear to god, this is exactly what I'm talking about with the shitty education system kneecapping the democracy.
What’s the point of voting for a 3rd party when they have no members in Congress or the courts? They’d have to coalition with Republicans or Democrats anyways.
Gridlock is better than streamlined totalitarianism. Vote for them in both. And courts weren't really partisan before ~2010.
Exactly, it's not like the president has all power (at least not yet, we'll see where it is in a couple years). Without supporting members of the other branches, a third party president is nearly useless. That said, I'd take a useless but well meaning president over Trump.
^ This speaks to a lack of civics education. Without an overwhelming majority, Congress can't pass harmful legislation with an executive veto, and the executive can still halt its implementation.
With a "First Past The Post, Winner Takes All"-system like you have in the US, there's virtually no chance of a third party winning an election, as the majority of the country haven't even heard of your candidate, and thus won't vote for it.
And then still, once you get your third party elected president, then what? They'll have to make huge compromises on their campaign promises in order to get anything done in Congress.
The public choosing to vote for a different party wins in a FPTP system regardless. The obstacle is the public.
Ew, this comment is gross.
I know, right? You should delete it.
OK, just fucking stop, this is "I know you are but what am I" level.
LOL, we live in a society that celebrates never maturing and the goal of every post since these types were on reddit, is to say something witty that continues to confirm to the zeitgeist and not push against anything.
I don't expect any better from them even though I would certainly like to.
I can't.
It requires the person who thinks they were saving everyone else (assuming y'all wasn't referring to queers and blacks specifically) by voting and that they can hold it over others to delete it or a mod to.I hope you find the help you so obviously need.
Right, so no response so this is my point. It's just a conformist shout to show to everyone else that you have heard someone else say it to someone before.
It's not clever it doesn't hurt, I understand the response I will get when I say something controversial. Wishing others get help makes it seem like only people you like are rationally minded and people that may not be mentally well are rude which is diminishing to them.
Really just, insult for the moment at least right? Don't be lazy is at the core of my point and this is exactly that.
What are you even talking about?
Conformity through repeating phrases you think make you sound better is a waste of everyone's time even to the person they think they are "helping" by saying get help.
I said something controversial and there was controversy? I expect that. My point is to try to convey my opinion anyways cause I don't care about being silent for decorum.
If you don't understand my actual words then that's just unfortunately a common flaw of communicating.
If it's obvious then what is the help I need?
Whatever help is necessary to stop you from replying twice 2 hours apart to a comment on the internet. Log off.
I was replying to another comment on this chain at the time and it was a point I wanted to make. It's a forum where all we have are the messages we write to convey our point. So, no I'm alright. I do log off and do other things that's also my point.
People take the Internet too seriously.