You don't get to claim you care about trans kids while voting for a government that supports Israeli Hitler.

Says who? Did your way result in less genocide, or more?

democrats will try to stand behind marginalized communities as though we can math our way into ignoring US imperialism and murder

Who said anything about ignoring? It's harm reduction. The lesser of two evils is still evil. But you know what? It's less evil. If I have to pick between two dead Palestinians and a dead trans kid, or two dead Palestinians, I'll pick the option with less dead kids 100% of the time.
Saying that we can't do something to help people because it's accepting something bad is the same argument conservatives use to argue against needle exchange programs or sex ed. No one should be using heroin, so we shouldn't try to keep them from getting HIV.

This is what's called having a semblance of moral principles.

I'm sure the children who were bombed are deeply appreciative of your intact principles.

Here's an analogy: If I offer you a glass of lemonade with 50% urine and another glass with 10% urine, are you happy to drink the latter because of the difference?

Are you going to choose to drink the first because the situation is bullshit?

The suggestion that we should continue voting for the lesser evil given this trajectory fits the definition of insanity.

And leaning into it or doing nothing is just suicidal.

A lot of people view it differently.

We draw a line at literal genocide

To many people, you don't. You require a candidate to be sufficiently anti-genocide in their addresses before you'll vote for them, but you don't view stopping an openly pro genocide politician as reason to vote for someone.

Seems like every time the GOP puts up some God-awful Republican, leftists and progressives are expected to get in line and vote for establishment milquetoast candidates.

Yes. Those shit candidates are at least less antithetical to our wishes. You don't get "none of the above". You get milquetoast or you get Hitler.

Instead of blaming the politicians for failing to represent their voter-base, you blame the voters for failing to support their politicians.

That's the argument used against people who say people need to go to the movies to support the studios. The difference is that you will get one of the politicians, and in the US it's one of two.

So pick: the mildest of diplomatic pressure against genocide while changing little of the structural support, or vocal encouragement with increased facilitation and also we bomb kids more, setup internment camps and try to kill trans kids.

What a lot of people see is people being given that choice and saying "they're both the same to me", and later indignantly saying how they're against something they did literally nothing to stop and being angry at the people who didn't sell it hard enough.

No one is owed your vote, and the Democratic party is really missing opportunities to appeal to a disgruntled leftward segment of the population, but it's confounding to hear more vitriol at the party that didn't do enough to sell not letting Hitler take office, than at the one that actually put him there, and usually coming from those that wouldn't say no to Hitler without being sufficiently courted first.

If he had praised them and then did it, it simply would have made this joke not work.

does that question make you feel uncomfortable?

No? Seriously. You're fishing for drama and cognitive dissonance where there just isn't any.

The fuck is wrong with you? It's making fun of him for deriding something and then immediately being angry that NATO, the useless thing we don't need, didn't help.

You're fishing for drama by missing the point of "trump is a buffoon".

Ah, I see. To me, what they said and what I said seem effectively analogous. "If you tolerate others to some degree, then others will tolerate you to some degree" doesn't really prescribe an action, it just describes the consequence of the "paradox".

My focus was more on the binary aspect of your response, since I don't think it fits and it leads to different conclusions.
A dinner discussion is not the same as killing someone. That gradient of tolerance is what allows people to be tolerant of the intolerant without the infinite regress you mentioned.

Obviously fake launch picture. Have you ever noticed that our images of rocket launches increase in quality at nearly the exact same rate that our ability to simulate smoke on graphics cards increases?

It's like they're not even trying.

It's because people looked at a line of a diff without looking at the actual context.
It's like finding the line in a diff where someone deleted a call to "check password" and concluding that this means the service is no longer verifying passwords.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/

We never sell your personal data. Unlike other big tech companies that collect and profit off your personal information, we’re built with privacy as the default. We don’t know your age, gender, precise location, or other information Big Tech collects and profits from.

Basically, they consolidated and clarified their data privacy policies to be legally accurate. People took a content change to be a policy change on the assumption that you can't just delete words in one place and put new ones somewhere else.

"I see you for who you are, you are valid, and you still suck" is a "delightful" take.

Jesus. That's almost as dark as the reality of things.

The weird thing is, they don't actually sell the jars anymore. "Ball jars" are not made by the ball jar corporation after their antitrust lawsuits for being a fucking jar monopoly. So they sold the "ball jar" rights and now only do aluminum cans for food packaging and high end satellites and satellite launch systems.

The idea could be perfectly cute, and I feel like it would have been so easy to not make it "shame-y".

Like, "just a nibble", "pretty good!”, "yum!" and "my favorite". "I couldn't possibly...", "if you insist", and "thanks Grandma".

This doesn't read like seething to me.

Like, it's great that people are unionizing, because even if there's the best possible relationship between businesses and labor, the union still makes that relationship more equitable.
But that doesn't mean that the creation of the union has to be viewed as hostility between labor and business.

I'll be interested to see if their good reputation holds up to pressure,but as of right now I haven't heard anything that makes me want disbelieve their statement.