Too many jumps in logic for me to care about any of this lol. Have fun in your little echo chamber where no one will ever disagree with you.

So anything you don’t agree with is liberalism? They didn’t mention their views anywhere, this sounds a lot like projection. Figures for a .ml user I suppose.

Sunk cost fallacy

Point is that they’re all considered the Abrahamic religions for a reason: they share common aspects and roots regardless of their differences.

Besides, isn’t it something of a fundamental trait of many religions to claim exclusive credibility? Christianity isn’t exactly unique in this regard.

I can’t stand this argument. It’s the exact same logic as blurting out “not all men” when women rightfully express how they should be cautious when interacting with them in certain contexts.

Sure, not all Americans. That just doesn’t matter in the slightest when there’s a large enough chunk of them to get the world in the mess it is now. If they get their shit together maybe people will stop generalizing as a means of precaution for the sake of sparing headaches. The problem is with them as a whole, not the people understandably steering clear.

…

Didn’t think this image could possibly get any more absurd while still being accurate and yet now you can just replace the lady with automatic emails. Capitalism truly breeds innovation

The Orleans Parish Communication District (OPCD) is changing the way dispatch calls are handled in New Orleans with the implementation of new technology.

There’s a lot of things to blame the police for, but this isn’t one of them. Besides, emergency services aren’t just cops. Why would they have all the say over a hotline they compose only one facet of?

This just in: shit comes from ass

The US is literally a country born through and sustained by violence. You really can’t just get around that when it’s most poignant.

It’s less about you not agreeing with me and more about your opinion being based on false presumptions. You’re entitled to thinking that sarcasm and the ability to detect it is associated with intelligence; I would agree with you on that. But assuming it’s as simple as that without taking into account the method of communication is misleading.

Okay even then the point still stands. You don’t just shun people because they can’t recognize social cues, and you don’t assume they’re any less intelligent for it. It’s just presumptuous.

Not only that, but most cues for the intent of a message are either through tone of voice or body language. It’s disingenuous to assert that there’s no hindrance in the efficacy of communication when being done through a strictly written format. Something your first source lines out explicitly:

Other research has show[n] that sarcasm can be easily misinterpreted, particularly when communicated electronically. In one study, 30 pairs of university students were given a list of statements to communicate, half of which were sarcastic and half of which were serious. Some students communicated their messages via e-mail and others via voice recordings. Participants who received the voice messages accurately gleaned the sarcasm (or lack thereof) 73 percent of the time, but those who received the statements via e-mail did so only 56 percent of the time, hardly better than chance. By comparison, the e-mailers had anticipated that 78 percent of participants would pick up on the sarcasm inherent in their sarcastic statements. That is, they badly overestimated their ability to communicate the tenor of their sarcastic statements via e-mail. What’s more, the recipients of the sarcastic e-mails were also decidedly overconfident. They guessed they would correctly interpret the tone of the e-mails they received about 90 percent of the time. They were considerably less overconfident about their ability to interpret voice messages.

Given the risks and benefits of sarcasm, your best bet is to keep salty remarks limited to conversations with those you know well, lest you offend others—even as you potentially help them think more creatively.

That last argument I quoted can be directly overcome through the use of tone indicators, regardless of “how intelligent” the recipient is.

I guess that title could maybe be construed as fine if only strangely implicative for the platform, but that sentence under it? “Women who always say yes”? Yikes. Not sure how that can be anything other than plain disgusting.

They both kind of suck tbh. The first looks like a nightmare to acid trip in and the other looks like a wizard sucked all the colour out of it.

You know tone indicators are used by neurodivergent people who struggle to understand intent, right?

Jesus dude, why so hostile? There’s nothing inherently wrong with not knowing enough about something.

where is our international solidarity partners?

Solidarity with the nation currently being aggressive toward various instances of its “allied” countries? I can’t see how it’s reasonable to expect any one citizen of those countries to give any amount of support to the nation currently threatening their home’s stability. There’s no practical reason to do anything more than reduce its interactions with said country for the sake of its own citizens’ livelihoods. Global relations are a matter of give and take, and right now all the US is doing is taking.

Had to double-check that I wasn’t having a stroke because of this headline

Primary elections for candidates are a thing aren’t they? I’m Canadian but that seems to be pretty widely practiced.

Removed by mod

Whichever outcome makes him most miserable is preferable