LemmeAtEm

Do you really not understand that titling any fucking post ever is doing the same thing? Fucking clown.

If the title was a NYT headline with two words changed: "Kamala Harris makes an official statement in condemnation of political terrorism" you wouldn't be clutching your pearls, now would you? OP's title is far more factual though, and that's what you actually don't like. You people are so transparent it's laughable.

Posting news in a news comm of a presidential speech that is literally a link to the official government website of that president is "intentionally inflammatory and trolling"? This is a joke, right? You're doing a bit and playing a caricature of a typical lib clown?

"Now is not the time to oppose genocide."

Your reprehensibility is confirmed. History will look upon people like you as on those who supported Nazis but pretended the concentration camps were just a bit much.

you: "Yes you absolutely should tacitly support genocide. If you don't tacitly support genocide then you're an accelerationist."

There are other candidates you can vote for that are vastly lesser evils than both the fascist democrats and fascist republicans; candidates who are not actively funding and perpetrating genocide but actually, get this, opposing it. If instead of voting for one of those, you still choose to support a party committing genocide, you aren't just an accelerationist and wrong, you're fucking despicable, evil.

I mean, a choice between cancer and the common cold is still a choice.

What a strange, ill-fitting analogy. First of all, who in the hell gets to choose between getting cancer or getting a cold? But even if we ignore that, it's still not a fitting analogy because one is typically a deadly disease and the other is just a temporary discomfort, so it absolutely does not apply to the US regime's political parties. With democrats and republicans, we still have 2 deadly diseases, so the analogy should be more like "a choice" between colon cancer or bladder cancer.

Both siding Republicans vs Democrats, while both bastions of dirty capitalism, is an intentionally superficial take

You know what's "superficial"? Failing to see through this obvious goodcop/badcop routine and thinking both of their goals aren't exactly the same.

Oh yeah, just look at all that genociding going on!

No, it's people like you refusing to accept reality but rather willfully hiding in your racist propagandized little bubble who can't be taken seriously.

Did you just look at the pictures or did you actually read the text? It's not about who gets cheered for and who doesn't. The issue is people (in the US) saying it's not possible that a Chinese athlete did that and that he somehow cheated, which is not only childish and cringe, but extremely hypocritical given the context.

*Just to be fully accurate, there is intent involved when people do selective breeding. Such as with pets or other domesticated animals. But usually that's separated out and not considered evolution, though ironically enough, it actually still is evolution.

I posted this as a reply to another comment from a user on another instance, but your instance doesn't allow you to see hexbear, so I'll reply here too.

Yeah, it's a bit unfortunate using the word design that way. However, it's not completely wrong, it's almost more a problem of the baggage that the word design carries, obviously "intelligent design" as a concept for evolution is bullshit and if you can't separate the concept of "design" from intent then you're still just as wrong. All that said, I think it's fair to talk about species being designed, there is just absolutely zero intent involved anywhere,* with no forethought, or any "thought" at all from the designer. A species is "designed" entirely by the forces of circumstance. The material conditions, if you will, of their environment.

Making this comment because I'm seeing some of these issues crop up in the comments, and in comments from different instances that can't see each other, so rather than reply individually, I'll just make a separate standalone comment.

It bugs me a little whenever people talk about how old a species is. There are different levels to how wrong it is possible to be about this. The worst level is where people think that it's the individuals that are somehow ancient. No. The individuals from those times are as long gone as all the other individuals from that time. Most people don't think that, but it happens. Another level is a bit less wrong, but still is. That the species itself is ancient because it somehow avoided evolution. Nah, it's just retained a lot of characteristics. Theses species still underwent evolution, it's literally unavoidable. It's just that the way they adapted to an ancient environment still works as adaptation to the current (and intervening) environments. They haven't gone through as many drastic visible changes because the way their ancestors lived still works for their modern iterations.

So it is definitely fair to say a species is old, but it's important to realize that that doesn't mean it's literally old in that it hasn't evolved. If they are impressed by species that haven't gone through a lot of apparent changes over the eons, they should check out stromatolites.

Yeah, it's a bit unfortunate. However, it's not completely wrong to use the word design, it's almost more a problem of the baggage that the word "design" carries. obviously "intelligent design" as a concept for evolution is bullshit and if you can't separate the concept of "design" from intent then you're still just as wrong. All that said, I think it's fair to talk about species being designed, there is just absolutely zero intent involved anywhere,* with no forethought, or any "thought" at all from the designer. A species is "designed" entirely by the forces of circumstance. The material conditions, if you will, of their environment.

Then they have the correct position, at least on the second part (and honestly I doubt anyone there doesn't care). Voting won't make one goddamn lick of a difference on this issue and if you think it will, you're painfully naive.