How dare you post this without the sauce.

The above commenter called for employers to discriminate against applicants on the basis of their political views. I simply pointed out that’s a bad idea and you went off about “both extremes” and how the left has gone too far.

I’m so sick of this shit. Yes, the j6er is a moron, but removing worker protections against political discrimination is also a moronic response to this issue. Who here is being “extreme”?

Employers should proactively inquire about one’s political leanings before hiring someone.

You surely see why this would be terrible, right?

I need to see some receipts for these wild claims.

Nothing gets done blaming others and taking no action yourself.

You’re literally complaining that she decided to take action too soon for your taste.

In my experience growing up southern baptist Christians only bring up that interpretation when convenient. The Old Testament is completely valid when they want it to be, and invalid when they don’t.

I hate how well this analogy works.

Yes, multiple voices, probably debating what I’m going to cook for dinner later. At this point I might be going a bit too far anthropomorphizing the voices, it’s not like actual separate personalities, they’re all me. It’s more like perspective taking. I’m engaging in a conversation with myself and the different voices will take different stances. For example I might have a “lazy voice” that just wants to eat leftovers and a “craving voice” that wants to cook tacos. I decide what to do by having the voices hash it out.

As I’m describing this it all sounds very intentional and like I’m playing pretend, but it really is just automatic.

If a word does not adequately describe what I’m thinking I just use more words, or I get creative with them and use them in new ways. I guess that’s what makes me prone to getting lost in thought for long periods of time or being very long winded when I’m talking to people. When I’m talking about something I’ve recently been very interested in people often have to cut me off because I’ll essentially start verbalizing my thought process to them and forget they’re there.

For me it’s not that I can’t think without words, it’s just that the words are very useful tools for organizing my thoughts. I’ve been doing it all my life though so it doesn’t really require more effort than thinking in concepts. It’s like breathing, it happens automatically but I can stop or control it if I want to. When I stop my inner voice I would describe my thoughts as sort of fuzzy and ephemeral. I would easily forget them or have difficulty expressing them without first putting them into words.

That does make me wonder if maybe I use my inner voice as a bit of a crutch when I’m reading, but I think it helps me infer tone and get immersed in what I’m reading. Perhaps I am sacrificing some reading speed but I do believe it helps me with comprehension and memory.

Though I will add that it’s more the concepts that I remember than the words themselves. Give me a quote and I couldn’t tell you what page and where on the page it was, but I could tell you what was happening in that scene, what happened before and after, what the character was feeling and why they said it, who they said it to and so on.

Learning to get over religious shame and guilt took quite some time for me, and I still have to catch myself sometimes when an inner voice says things I no longer believe/agree with. Part of getting over that meant cultivating other voices. When one voice bites another bites back lol.

As a plus I’m very good in a debate.

Perhaps! I also think internal monologues can develop just from learning to read and write silently. Having an inner voice makes it easier to absorb the information in a book or to plan out your writing in advance.

Your anecdote seems to support that it’s a learned behavior/skill, which tracks for me. I have a very active internal dialogue that’s difficult to turn off. I say dialogue instead of monologue because I often make up “other voices” that bounce ideas off each other, and this generally happens without my conscious effort. I think I developed this because as I was growing up I was encouraged to pray regularly, and I was very fanatically religious as a kid so I did so as often as I could. I prayed silently so often in fact that my thoughts were basically a constant one-sided monologue directed to god. Whenever I would daydream or let my imagination wander I would imagine god responding, and eventually the constant monologue became a dialogue. I would work out problems or make decisions by having conversations with an imaginary god. When I stopped believing in god the second voice never went away, I just started recognizing it as my own.

Biden needs to do whatever he needs to do to get elected.

Up to and including supplying weapons and funding for a genocide? This position is morally reprehensible. I’m sympathetic to the argument that people should still vote for Biden for harm reduction, but suggesting Biden’s support for Israel’s genocide is justified because it helps him get elected is way over the line.

Science is just the method by which technological advancements are achieved, it doesn’t decide the priorities. That privilege falls to capital, and by extension, capitalists.

Does the rule only apply if they’re name-calling other commenters and not the subject of the article? If not then mke_geek’s original comment should be removed since he directly calls the subject of the article an awful person with no conditional.

Personally I think this rule is being a bit over-enforced and none of these comments should have been removed. Being overly strict with civility rules allows bad actors to take advantage of “civility politics” to shut down dissent.

Edit: except maybe the one calling them a dickhead, I get why that one was removed. The ones that just reflect their own words back at them I think should be left alone.

Ah, but you see, it’s not hypocritical because rules are just weapons to use against your opponents, and we’re suckers for not using it against them first. /s

The problem here is that you seem to value your own property rights over the right of individuals to have shelter. Sure, it’s not an ideal situation; in an ideal society “squatting” shouldn’t occur, but we live in a society where people are forced to choose between being homeless or squatting in someone’s property. If you think they should forgo their right to shelter to preserve your right to property then you are the awful person.

Climate activists can lobby in person when available, taking time away from other things. Oil companies can hire armies of lobbyists - some of whom masquerading as “concerned citizens” - to overwhelm public hearings, buy out media companies to manipulate public opinion and engage in astroturfing campaigns, and directly sway politicians with legal bribery (deliberately being vague about the purpose of “gifts” to maintain the benefit of the doubt about there being any quid pro quo involved).

Lobbying effectively requires resources - namely capital - which oil companies have in abundance and climate activists do not. To suggest that climate activists should simply fight on their terms is ignorant at best and malicious at worst.