zarkanian

joined 8 months ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 minutes ago

Also, being a "furry" is remarkably easy. Are you a fan of anthropomorphic animals? Congrats, you're a furry. It doesn't require you to wear a fursuit or anything else. That means that if you're in the fandom of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Sonic the Hedgehog, etc. You. Are. A. Furry.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 34 minutes ago

The US is far from perfect, but at a baseline we don’t have overt state sanctioned ethnic or theologic cleansings.

We do, though. That's what's happening in Gaza.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 36 minutes ago

Abuse doesn't have to be physical, though. It can also be emotional.

I'm not saying to drop your friends and family at the first signs of negativity. There are people, though, who are not good for you, and nothing you can do can change that. The sooner you figure out who those people are and get them out of your life, the better.

My friends are not MEANT to make me happy. They are meant to be there when I’m unhappy.

What if they make you feel worse when you're unhappy?

I mean, it looks like we agree that friends should, if not make you happy, at least make your life better in some way. I'm talking about the people who are making your life worse.

Sometimes they’ll have to “make me unhappy” to make me realize my mistakes. That’s what friendship is all about.

What if you don't agree that they're mistakes?

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Would you really maintain a relationship with somebody who made you unhappy? Somebody who abused you? Somebody who didn't respect you? And if so, why?

People can help people, yet lately they only think of themselves.

Why "lately"?

It's not only thinking of yourself. It's thinking about yourself and the people who aren't fucking you up. If somebody has a history of toxic behavior, then you have to take that into account. If you let that affect you, you're A) harming yourself and B) are less able to help the people who actually do love you and respect you.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Xi, Putin, and Netanyahu aren't US politicians. They don't represent me. Harris does.

I will happily call Putin and Netanyahu war criminals, but I don't know how I can affect them over here in the US. (I don't know enough about Xi to say that about him.)

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 hours ago (4 children)

"Going through a mental crisis" doesn't necessarily mean that you're treating your friends like shit. If you treat your friends like shit, and that drives them away, whose fault is that?

There are, of course, exceptions, but those have to be people whom I care for and love very, very much. And even then, if the toxicity is too damaging to my own mental health, I have to cut them off for my own good. At the end of the day, all human relations rely on a cost/benefit analysis. If I'm losing more than I'm gaining from this relationship, why should I continue it?

I also don't think you're doing that person any favors by ignoring their bad behavior.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 15 points 4 hours ago

Or, worse, the essay doesn't support their argument at all. Because they didn't actually read it in the first place.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You should be able to explicate your own argument, though. "Read this book" isn't convincing on its own.

 
 
[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago

If we can't get rid of the electoral college entirely, electors should at least be proportional. For example, if Kamala Harris gets 25% of a state's votes and Trump gets 74%, then Harris should get 25% of the electors from that state (instead of zero).

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago

A political movement that advocates for the establishment and support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

further, any attempt to create a viable Third Party is not only doomed to failure

The Republicans were originally a "third party". It used to be Democrats vs. Whigs.

Duverger's Law isn't like a law against jaywalking. It just says that first-past-the-post systems create two-party systems, which is true. It doesn't tell you who you should vote for.

In other words, the Spoiler Effect, Like what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000. He’s the reason why Bush won.

Al Gore actually won, depending upon how you count the votes. Additionally, you're operating on the assumption that Nader voters would've voted for Gore, instead of just staying home.

In fact, there were a lot of Democrats who voted for Bush, and their numbers dwarf Nader voters by several orders of magnitude. If you want to play that game, then it's Democrats who are responsible for Bush winning, not the Green Party.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

A lot of US Zionists are some flavor of Christianity. It's very common.

583
God's Plan (sh.itjust.works)
 
651
UFO (sh.itjust.works)
 
 
 
view more: next ›