dublet
@dublet@lemmy.world
- Comment on Merr Crimas 11 months ago:
sɐɯʇsᴉɹɥϽ ʎɹɹǝꟽ
- Comment on Why is everyone so giddy about the flooding thay happened at burning man? 1 year ago:
It’s basically this IMO
- Comment on Researching alcohol interventions for a friend. I’ve seen more ads for alcohol than ever in my life 1 year ago:
You can buy the coins for as little as £0.75 each (~$1) recovery12.co.uk/newcomer-aa-medallions-67-c.asp Then go to a bar and get a drink for almost nothing.
😀
- Comment on Top Gear, the original master shitposters 1 year ago:
Similar gag but actually from Top Gear
- Comment on Do all fruits have bugs inside them, or do most commercial fruits in fact not have any bugs? 1 year ago:
A fair hypothesis, but can you substantiate it?
- Comment on Assuming time travelers are real, but only influenced events so far back enough that a smartphone they lost in the past didn't survive for archeologists to find, how far back are we speaking? 1 year ago:
A phone in a region with rock or ice flow might be grinded down into fine sand within hundreds of years. A smartphone touching lava will be burned to crisp within minutes
A Nokia 3310 on the other hand would survive all of these without a scratch. 🙃
- Comment on Why do most religious conservatives support capitalist ideology? 1 year ago:
I can’t answer for America, but generally in democracies you get two and only two parties.
Your answer is both incredible specific to the UK and subtly incorrect. I don’t quite have the time to write a full rebuttal, but the more egregious of errors is this one:
The Liberals were the radicals, the party of industry and progress and free markets and who cares who it hurts as long as it’s the future.
One of the core tenets of liberalism is the harm principle. Sure progress is important but so is not harming anyone. Your post seems to equate only socialism with bringing good to British society, when that quite simply is just not true, and refutable. The Labour Party in the UK quite successfully adopted a lot of the items on the liberal agenda, such as gender equality.
The FPTP system is quite poisonous to the political debate in the UK as the natural tendency that only one of two parties can dominate and thus removes all nuance and creates toxic tribalism.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 year ago:
Try this one. Maybe your browser or app doesn’t deal with the quote characters.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 year ago:
The negative option is that it’s a “no quarter” flag.
Oh, yikes. biscaynetimes.com/…/the-‘no-quarter’-flag-and-its…
- Comment on [deleted] 1 year ago:
For those unaware further reading on this is the Southern Strategy.
- Comment on What more need be said about it? 1 year ago:
- Comment on I have just joined lemmy. What should I do next? 1 year ago:
- Comment on I have just joined lemmy. What should I do next? 1 year ago:
Is this what you want? Sorry, I’m dyslexic
- Comment on Please Consider Defederating from rammy.site 1 year ago:
Karl Popper entered the chat.
Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
