…the argument your making about the 2nd amendment is why it’s now obsolete. When America was founded, firearms could actually be used to overthrow a corrupt government. They had practical utility. At this point, however, half the population armed with assault rifles wouldn’t make a difference. A combination of the government’s mass surveillance and superior firepower would put down the rebellion before it got off the ground

I’m of the opinion that the constitution should adjust to changing times. 18th century laws aren’t geared to solve 21st century issues.

Let me reframe my comment. Tell me if you still think it’s trolling. Assume I’m responding to:

“Those woke people are getting what they deserve at the gas pump. They voted for Sleepy Joe Biden, they get what they deserve.”

…I’ve never met a “Woke” person in real life. I know a bunch of Democrats, but not the stereotype obsessed over on social media. It’s reminiscent of the McCarthy era and communism. Everyone talked about communists all day, every day, but they were sooo good at blending in that nobody saw them.

What does “Woke” even refer to? People who think the benefits of diversity outweigh the negatives? People who are annoyed with the people online ranting about the right to life and abortion? If this were the case, then a lot of the Republicans i know are apparently “Woke”.

…if you no longer think I’m trolling, then you just don’t agree with my original opinion.

I haven’t met many people that conform to the MAGA stereotype. It seems to mostly be used as a slur to dehumanize Republicans. I’m a centrist; I’d have made a similar argument if the majority was dehumanizing Democrats.

This is my opinion. I’m sorry if you don’t like it. Out of the hundred simple comments that were insulting Republicans, my comment was the only one that didn’t agree.

…I looked up Sangamon county, and it seems like the perfect place to build a data center. It’s in the middle of nowhere and it’s economy is non-existent. Pretty much the only thing it has is a lot of flat land.

Note: Sorry if I violated the rules with this comment. I didn’t see what sub I was posting in.

By this logic, schools are valid targets because they are educating future CIA recruits and Walmart is a valid target because it’s providing the food to fuel them.

I was banned from News, and blocking it was the best thing that’s happened to Lemmy. My All feed went from 7/38 Trump posts to 1 out 38 Trump posts.

The high frequency of simple two sentence comments like, “I bet MAGA is sad right now. XD. Those subhuman conerva-stupids are getting what they deserve,” suggests that the perceived popularity might not be real.

I think this platform would become more popular if political subreddits weren’t automatically included in the All feed. There aren’t enough people to dilute the propoganda. It gives a bad first impression.

Prohibition is effective, it’s just that it doesn’t work for easy to manufacture compounds such as alcohol or marijuana. Every known human culture has independently discovered alcohol, and marijuana is a weed that is ready to smoke in its natural form.

As far as social media goes, my country has reached a point where TikTok and Facebook are preinstalled on every phone. If a parent buys their kid a phone and removes them, they will reinstall themselves after an automatic update. When you take into consideration the “streamlined” registration process, one can argue this is a means to target prepubescent children.

…I guess an 8 year old could download a VPN and steal their parents identification, but I feel like some form of prohibition would help.

…this was actually a positive experience. My All feed is completely different after excluding that one particular community. It feels less like I’m surrounded by bots and more like an active platform.

I still think it’s a step in the right direction. Once you make it illegal for children to use social media, you can start going after the platforms for knowingly manipulating children.

You don’t understand, man. Some people in this world don’t have food on the table. Having a computer to read book reviews-especially British book reviews-is privilege.

Thanks. I figured I’d be blocked eventually because the opinions on that sub were so homogeneous, but it would have been fucked up if I had to make a new account to block the sub that banned me.

… it’s just baffling to me. Dissenting opinions are a good thing. Echo chambers aren’t healthy for the people in them. It’s just weird how the opinions of the people I know are so different than the opinions of people on the internet. It’s like I live in an alternate reality.

The value of social media lies is in it’s ability to change thoughts, opinions, and long-term behavior. The public underestimates how effective this technology is, especially when it comes to children. In the absence of regulations, these platforms can make people believe just about anything by exploiting perceived peer pressure.

10/10. I’d smash.

I think it’s important. Most of the people in AA aren’t religious, but the “program” wouldn’t survive if it lacked structure. People use the religious terminology, but most of them don’t believe it.

It makes sense. I live near the border, and I’ve worked at quite a few places that used Canadian imports to make finished American products. I’m glad I found a new job since them; God knows it my ex-boss found a new supplier of steel tubing. Every car part we manufactured was a product of Canada.

Removed by mod

Personally, I don’t believe anyone has human rights. It is the wolves right to hunt the gazelle for food, and it’s the gazelle’s right to evade him. Although I am not against uplifting poorer countries, I feel like they would just become more wolves if they got their shit together.

I know a lot of Christians, and they have normal views on pollution and the environment. They are about as apathetic about the issue as the rest of us.

…they make similar arguments about atheists. “Since they don’t believe in sin, they are selfish and violent.”

Lol. Although this claim might be technically true, comparing the cost of the first prototype lithium ion battery with a modern mass produced batteries is apples to oranges.

I read it. It’s not compelling.

The first cited research regarding DNA damage is a dead link. It says “error: this is not a published article” or something like that.

The second cited research is an abstract claiming that 20% of mice developed lung cancer after being exposed to vape smoke for 9 weeks. The methodology is blocked behind a paywall, but I’m betting they concentrated trace components and blasted mice with it for two months straight. This isn’t very informative; if I concentrated the carcinogens found in normal city air, I could probably achieve a higher kill rate.

A better example of this strategy would be if I blasted mice with extremely high intensity UV radiation to prove that the sun was dangerous. Sure, 90% of mice would quickly get skin cancer, but it doesn’t tell us how harmful the sun is in real scenarios. Blasting an animal with a lifetime worth of sun in an hour is more dangerous than gradual exposure.

Tobacco the plant has a host of carcinogens. No matter where you put tobacco -mouth, lungs, bladder, nose, ass, wherever-it causes cancer. The article’s claim that nicotine causes lung cancer but nicotine gum is safe is pretty ridiculous.

Source: I’m a chemist. Part of my schooling was making mundane results appear as sensational as possible.