SootyChimney

The difference is atheists may be correct, but nowadays whether you're religious isn't, on its own, a huge prediction factor in how you affect others' lives.

When your politics is lib or reactionary, when you're racist, or nationalist, or just deliberately ignorant and loudmouthed about world politics, you are by definition actively and deliberately conspiring to make peoples' lives worse. Those people affected are often minority groups, and/or friends, family and comrades. But whatever kind of human it is, it should be obvious why it's personally important to us to oppose that.

I don't think they're arguing echo chambers can never ever be called for, just that Lemmy may be better off not as one.

Eh. This still remains clearly a product of Ameri-centrism in my mind: An America-only issue was being touted as a global problem everyone should be aware of, so everybody else in the world who has never seen or even imagined this weird shit will regard it as so uncommon as to not matter. And no, I don't think one side was being particularly more 'calm and patient' than the other.

You should honestly investigate how democracy actually works in China - You'll find that they have far more votes and actual choices for their officials than you ever have, and the approval rate of the government, even when anonymously/independently surveyed, is almost certainly higher than your country's.

I appreciate the honest tone. Is the dislike on politics threads emojis just emojis in general, or can we lay the blame on lemmy sizing bug?

That is not the assumption. You're obviously less likely to be involved any crimes labelled as 'extremist' or 'terrorist' if your skills lie in accountancy.

As a programmer, I've honestly met about one colleague who was actually reactionary. The rest have been pretty much fine and on the level. I don't know if it's just American programmers or I'm just a massive outlier, but I've never seen justification for this labelling in my own experiences.

I think this probably vastly overcomplicates the issue. 'extremists' in this article seems to refer mostly to terrorists or terrorist group members/leaders.

Why would engineers be overrepresented in terrorists or terrorist groups? Because they have the engineering knowledge to make bombs, tell others make bombs, or to do infrastructural damage. It seems a fairly straight forward mechanism of causation.

I don't think "US and Canada do it" is a very effective argument for something being safe or reasonable. The reality is - We don't know what the effects are, and we can't even be completely sure they're doing what they say they are in the first place. The radioactivity may be low, but the presence of manmade tritium may well cause issues we don't even realise, and as always we're playing a gamble that "this number low so it's probably safe maybe". And that is undeniably a gamble, even if a low-risk one.

This is basically it, why would the ruling class waste the resources to even try for 100% agreement? The moment the left gains, or has potential to gain, even the slightest sliver of power, watch the ruling class deploy their mass resources to squash us back to irrelevance. I only clearly realised this when the very popular Bernie/Corbyn campaigns were so deliberately choked despite major support of the base.

This is so upsettingly uncannily a Simpsons bit - Rich guy eats fish contaminated by radioactive nuclear plant waste water discharged into natural sources to prove it's safe?