You gotta start killing people dude. History shows that's how you get your way.

Just look at how the reddit protest ended. Once threatened with losing their status as mods, they all caved.

Money and power are powerful motivators, and the mods work for free.

They're authoritarian and they hate the west. Of course they're appealing to communists.

Western commies idolising brutal authoritarian regimes is nothing new.

Sounds like they've successfully created a safe little echochamber. Wasn't that the point?

this

Edit: thank you for the gold, kind dear gentlesir or gentlemadame.

Edit2: wow I never expected to wake up to so many awards, who'd knew my most updooted comment would be about this?

You are the only one who decides what gives your life meaning, and you decide what counts as "waste". If your meaning is keeping up with people who have achieved big goals without working hard to achieve big goals of your own, you'll probably end up envious and miserable. A lot of people like doing that so you've got plenty of company to wallow in your misery with if that's what you want to do.

I'd suggest finding another form of meaning.

Vanlige dagligvarebutikker får selge øl, sider og annet opptil 4.75%. Men bare frem til kl 20 på ukedager, 18 på lørdager, og ikke på søndager for da må vi prise Herren. På søndager får vi bare kjøpe lettøl (opptil 2.75%) i dagligvarebutikker som er under 100m^2.

"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man"

Hell yeah you can blame the people. They chose to use those platforms, and they choose to stay with them as they grow ever shittier. They're the ones enabling platforms like reddit.

I agree in the event of a genocidal government, you throw them out, but obviously there needs to be a very high bar and a lot of safeguards to prevent partisan misuse. A losing Republican could claim a winning Democrat wants to conduct a genocide against unborn babies or something and the Jan6 insurrectionists would feel they were justified because of it.

What are the most damning pieces of evidence that Desantis will conduct a genocide if elected?

Should the 2016 election result have been overturned?

Did the 6th of January insurrectionists do the right thing, given they believed they were fighting against an authoritarian government? Or should they have accepted the result of the democratic process even though they disagreed with it?

I think most people strongly dislike free speech, but they want the right to express themselves, and the government allowing dissent is a necessary evil so they keep their own free speech. That's why they jump at any opportunity to limit everyone else's speech. People loved to say reddit was a private platform that can do what they want, so long as they kept the censorship to their political enemies.

Same appeal as other forms of extremism. You get a set of enemies to blame for everything wrong with the world. You can hate them and feel justified for it. You get simple solutions to complicated problems. You're in the know, while ordinary people are being manipulated by some evil elite.

This should be a safe place where we can all discuss our belief. Hateful disagreement must not be allowed.

Socialists and communists are not normally classified as centre-left here in Norway either.

Rådde for legeetikk gir råd til Den norske legeforening i etiske spørsmål.

– Å seie at dette ikkje er eit medisinsk spørsmål, men heller eit politisk eitt blir for lett, seier Aarseth.

Han seier også at dødshjelp strir med dei etiske reglane nedfelt i legeyrket, og viser til paragraf 5 i Etiske reglar for legar som seier at legar ikkje skal utføre dødshjelp.

– Dette er i aller høgaste grad eit spørsmål som gjeld legar.

Skulle likt å vite hvordan det er et medisinsk spørsmål. Etiske regler for leger er jo nettopp etiske og ikke medisinske regler. Spørsmålet om og når det er riktig å gi aktiv dødshjelp er etisk, mens hvorvidt man skal tillate det og støtte opp om det med offentlige midler er politisk.

Medisinske spørsmål som "kan pasienten bli bedre" og "har pasienten så store smerter at de kvalifiserer til aktiv dødshjelp" kommer først etter de etiske og politiske vurderingene er gjort. Og bare hvis man kommer frem til til at at man tillater aktiv dødshjelp gitt visse medisinske forutsetninger.

Men det er et aktuelt spørsmål for leger siden de jobber tett opp mot pasienter som kanskje vil vurdere aktiv dødshjelp. Og jeg forstår dilemmaet med brudd av legeløftet. Som et kompromiss synes jeg man bør se på en reservasjonsrett mot å henvise til aktiv dødshjelp, så sant man sørger for at tjenesten fortsatt er tilgjengelig for de som ønsker den. Og ikke la et mindretalls etiske overbevisninger stå i veien for et tilbud flertallet ønsker å tilby trengende. Det finnes vel leger i Norge som kunne tenke seg å tilby denne tjenesten?

Followed. Don't let me down!

/s is like explaining a joke you just made right away.

That's just the start my dude. Once we disregard insignificant values like human rights and personal freedom, solving the issue of other people making problematic choices becomes trivial.

Imagine all the crime we would prevent if we just locked up anyone who earns less than say 50k euros.

I disagree it's a media thing. It has been covered. It's just not an unusual story so people don't share it as much.

Now billionaires dying on a submarine will get shared plenty. People love those stories. So naturally, you'll see more about it.