Counterargument: Luke Skywalker.

Sounds like English vs Vikings all over again

Of course you don’t. You only care about yourself.

Looney Tunes fans looking at Bugs all day

I don’t think you quite grasp the meaning of the word “focus”…

Passive aggressiveness is its own benefit.

No. Japan is a democracy now. This lil guy is just a figurehead.

Just because you refuse to learn anything from this doesn’t mean there is nothing to be learned. I, for one, have got one important actionable insight from these replies: they prioritize having a strong president more than having a president that aligns with their values.

Trump radiates strength. You may say it’s fake strength, that it’s just the aggressiveness of his narcissism, but it doesn’t matter - he is perceived as strong, and that’s his main weapon, his number one selling point. Look at his his announcements and listen to what his supporters say - the main focus is on depicting him as strong and his opponents as weak. Policies are an afterthought.

Republican voters wanting a strong Republican president is a no-brainer, but the thing that really surprised me is Democrat leaning voters (Democrat enough to vote for AOC, at least) preferring a strong Republican president because he’s strong. I find it counterintuitive - if you’re going to have to live under the opponent party’s rule, shouldn’t you prefer a weak president that would be less forceful when implementing these policies that you disagree with?

This insight does shine a new light on some well known points. For example - Biden and Harris received lots of fire for supporting Israel. This always seemed weird to me - wouldn’t Trump, if elected, support Israel so much harder? But this new insight make it all make (twisted) sense. If - or, actually, now we can say “when” - Trump as a president will support Israel it will be an act of strength because it aligns with the Republican values he represents. When Biden did it, it was against Democratic values and therefore perceived as weakness - as surrendering to pressure.

Or, more importantly - I keep seeing (mainly here on Lemmy) claims that the Democratic party lost these elections because they did not go left enough. With this new insight, I think the problem is not that they didn’t go left enough, but that they didn’t go hard enough. It doesn’t matter where on the political spectrum you are aiming to be - you should be as forceful and as assertive as possible when going there. This is something Obama had in spades. This is what the Democrats need if they want to win the next elections.

Still more regular than randomized data.

Okay, but since real menstrual cycles are typically highly regular - wouldn’t it be fairly easy to filter out the fake ones?

Understanding why something is broken is a crucial prerequisite for fixing it. If you don’t care why it didn’t work, then you don’t care about making it work - you only care about being angry.

I believe that moral sacrifices performed to protect others deserve respect just like physical ones. A necessary evil may still be evil - but it’s also still necessary, which means that someone have to do it to prevent much greater evil. If you happen to benefit from the prevention of that greater evil, it is not right for you to condemn those who have dirtied their hands and soiled their souls to bring out that outcome.

I’m not saying it should be glorified, of course - that would just encourage the ones who actually enjoy that greater evil while making the ones who feel conflicted and guilty about having to do it feel even worse. But you should not criticize them either. Save that for the leaders who actually had more options, maybe even some non-evil ones.

Do you think the colonization by Europeans was good for the continent and its people?

Yes, but these immigrants did kind of ruined the entire continent, so not a great example…

Implying the British are less messed up about these things than the Americans?

The regular kind, probably?

Was this written by a prev-gen LLM?

Small comfort: they still can’t physically force you like they can with biometrics.

When you run over a child, there won’t be blood stains on the hood.

So that whole anti-masking thing was also metaphoric?