Did you miss the sentence “even if you still vote”?

Isn’t that libertarianism?

I’m not really knowledgeable enough to contribute to the discussion going on here.

I just wanted to say I’ve seen you engaging in good faith discussion all over Lemmy, and I really, really, appreciate that. Whenever socialism, communism, Marxism and the like come up, people are quick to jump to ad hominem and flinging shit-covered sarcasm at each other, and you consistently engage thoughtfully in the discussion, even when your interlocutors don’t. Thank you.

As someone who loved sc2 and had high hopes for Stormgate, it’s pretty hot garbage in its current state. Micro-transaction central before it’s even in a close to finished state.

Could you elaborate or provide a link to some further reading about how RCV is worse than first past the post? I haven’t heard this before and would like to learn more.

I’m in a similar boat of my name not being a big deal to me (also male). However, if a name is arbitrary, why should you change it? If it doesn’t matter whether it’s your original name or the name of your spouse, why on earth go to the trouble of changing it in the first place? “That’s how we’ve always done it” has never really held much water for me as an argument. If it’s of merit, it should stand up to scrutiny without the appeal to tradition.

However, to many people, names aren’t arbitrary. From a historical point of view, marriage used to be considered a transaction of property, and a woman’s last name had the connotation of ownership. Were I a woman, I would find that quite abhorrent, and even though that connotation has diminished I still don’t think I could stomach it.

For some specific cases, names hold recognition. I’m a singer and have friends & mentors for whom performing is their full time job. To change your last name after building name recognition can do serious harm to your fame, and thus income. So most of them in that situation will retain their maiden name for job security more than anything.

It’s not contradicting itself though. Your first quoted statement says “using high-resolution scanners”. The last one says “conventional MRI studies”. The methodology is what is different.

Fourth character reminds me of a character my friend played. His name was Jim Spoons, and his backstory was that his wife was murdered and he was trying to find out who the murderer is and avenge her. He carries this out until the final session, when it is revealed that he in fact was the one who killed his wife, and that Jim Spoons is an anagram for… OJ Simpson

I woke up with mold growing in my hair because of this comment

They wrote mean words on one jar of rice, nice words on the other, and the one with mean words grew mold, illustrating that you should choose your words carefully. That was their intention at least.

No it’s the mean words

He’s the husband of the vice president, that makes him the second gentleman. If she becomes president, then he would be the first gentleman.

Believe it or not, my criteria for prosperity is more than “literally somebody survives to propogate my species.”

Not to say I agree with everything the person you’re responding to is saying, but it’s gatekeeping because you keep repeating “actual atheists.” You’re commiting a No True Scotsman fallacy by saying in order to be a true atheist, you need to act a certain way.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Blueshift

Essentially yes

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

ITT: people missing the point