I think you’re getting attacked because this post is an accusation, first and foremost. It definitely doesn’t feel like it is positive or productive.
I think you’re getting attacked because this post is an accusation, first and foremost. It definitely doesn’t feel like it is positive or productive.
Your issue is that you have already come to a conclusion, and your issues aren’t issues to anyone but you. Give me an example of someone saying Hamas is literally fighting with rocks as an actual answer.
The biggest mistake a lot of people make is being born poor.
Their data is adjusted for family size. Family size has been consistently shrinking since the 1960s, which, if you adjust their graph, will lead to overall decrease in wages throughout time. It is a meaningless method of transformation to get data that supports a false narrative.
Why did you not point out that their data is transformed when I did?
Repeat same talking point.
The things you say are useless, especially since these are adjusted by household size. Do one that isn’t.
Well, that’s a non sequitur.
That seems subjective, don’t you think?
Clever because the response both answers my question and attempts not to. It presumes that you understand entendres, and thus hate people for wanting to be able to live their lives.
You didn’t respond to my issues, and since you believe in equality so much, it just seemed fair.
It’s telling that you don’t defend your own words and instead point to other words.
Problematic means it causes a problem. Problematic can be used in a variety of situations, but it always means that to anyone with a brain. Blue pill is stupid meme shit that means “Don’t talk to this person again because they probably hate black people and women.”
I disagree, not sure why you wrote we when you don’t speak for me.
Those terms have pretty clear connotations. Your words, on the other hand, seem like dogwhistles, and your lack of clarification seems to cement that.
Note: I’m a staunch proponent of equality before the law and unhindered access to opportunity for everyone
Those sound like weasel words. All people, rich or poor, are banned from sleeping under bridges and stealing food is “equality before the law.” Removal of programs that give minorities a step up is “unhindered access to opportunity.”
Yeah, I suppose those would. I wouldn’t have thought it, but definitionally, it would be! I mean, heck, some of those are listed by Meriam-Webster! Isn’t language neat? You learn something new every day.
Users create and/or share content, check. Users discuss content, check.
Unless you think something is missing from that definition, Lemmy is social media. It is pseudonymous, but it is still social because of the users.
Make sure you take your dog’s shoes off, too.
It’s even a step further. They also don’t want anyone to break the law against them. Who would they turn to? The police will arrest them.
Oh we can ___, we’re just required to pay massive amounts of money to a corporate middleman to do it.
Basically America.
I get it. I think defending yourself against that is probably a lost cause, though, even if that feels bad not to.
As for being an authority, personally, I see that. I think you made a statement and people, reasonably or not, assumed you know something more than they do. You post a lot, so why wouldn’t you know a lot?