Just give me a link to reading Lenin. I’ll take it from there

Well, you asked if I was arguing against improving safety when compared to fatality rates for any activity.

But for me to have made that argument, I’d have to have said that there is no rate of fatality that would justify improving safety. So, I was asking if you think that’s true:

Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?

But I sucked at wording it clearly. That’s on me.

In short, no, I’m not arguing that. Really, I was just clarifying what the person you responded to was saying. I’m not making an argument either way.

Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?

Well, nothing is 100% safe, and we allow plenty of things that are demonstrably unsafe to continue. So if you compare bike-car collisions against say, firearm suicides in the US, you’ll see that bike-car collisions aren’t that bad.

The fundamental argument is that nothing is totally safe, but some things are safer than others.

More like if you contextualize the incidents of bicycles and pedestrians with cars, you might realize they’re safer than you think. This is absolutely false for cars and pedestrians though in America at least.

It’s cute af too, with their little tongues sticking out

All Republicans do this. Fascism, communism, socialism, and liberalism are indistinguishable for them

I’m all for socialist policies, but the Biden-Harris administration didn’t kill the expanded child tax credit. Republicans did.

Clinton is not wrong. Only those of us that actually care about politics as a means to do something about social problems care about policy. The overwhelming majority of us those care about politics as a spectacle, a variation of edu-tainment with the social dynamics of team sports. And in that framework, message that distract from the team as us or the opposition as them are of no value.

Looks like Zoids…so, yes.

As someone who doesn’t use the /s and regularly gets downvoted as a result, I’m less interested in your downvote and more interested in why anyone upvotes.

For example, if we’re discussing American healthcare and you’re arguing for universal healthcare because it makes sense, I’m likely to respond sarcastically with “But that’s socialism! In America, we’d rather pay and arm and a leg to die from preventable diseases than just secure healthcare! That’s true patriotism!”

Now, if you were to take that at face value, I’m curious as to who you think would genuinely argue for excessive payments to die from preventable diseases so blatantly. Literally no one does that. That’s not giving credence to an exaggerated position because it’s not an actual position anybody would take. But your reaction is beside the point, because I’m not interested in you.

I’m interested in the people who agree with my sarcastic position, often by tamping down the hyperbole, because they’re unreasonable. These are people I’m trying to catch with my vinegar honey pot. It might giving credence to their views long enough for them to respond positively to me, but after that…it’s all mudslinging. And if someone says they oppose universal healthcare because it’s socialist, well then I get to have being extremely sarcastic with them while you get downvote me.

The current Lt. Governor of North Carolina is black and worse than Trump. Idk about the sexual assault stuff, but he’s still an absolute piece of shit.

Every answer so far is wrong.

It can be used for good purposes, though I’m not sure if characterize creating a personalized Jarvis as good per se. But, more broadly, capitalist inventions do not need to be used only by capitalists for capital ends.

There’s a few ways in practice.

1. Court decisions are binding broadly. The conservative capture of the Supreme Court is political genius, honestly. They tend to have the final say regarding policy.

2. Federal agency rules are also broadly binding. EPA rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions, for example, apply everywhere in the country.

3. State legislatures are often less polarized, which facilitates a more productive legislature.

4. State agencies, like a state environmental department, mirrors its federal counterpart but is more localized.

5. Non-state organizations can get things done, though their interests are often limited and not necessarily in the interests of the broad public as state and federal institutions are.

6. International institutions can ‘set the tone’. They may not have any power to actually do anything within a specific jurisdiction, but people within those jurisdictions can draw policy inspiration from international organizations and try for something locally binding.

I don’t use /s at all. I eschewed it a few years ago.

Some views deserve to be ridiculed, and that’s exactly what I’m trying to invite people to do.

Oh really?! Tone isn’t conveyed in text and you can’t detect literal sarcasm unless it’s broadcast like a beacon from someone’s warped piehole? Like a ship at sea in the calmest waters, you can’t find your way home without a lighthouse?

No article, it’s a video

I have a shikibuton and a very expensive mattress. I vastly prefer my shikibuton and sleeping on the floor. It tends to be cooler as you say, and my cat comes and lays right next to me sometimes rather than on me. Plus the floor is more supportive than the mattress without being overbearing.

Thanks, I hate it

It’s just a fact of life, ya know.