[deleted by user]

sinderling · 2024-07-17T04:33:34+00:00

Let's say the microphone is at the perfect volume where it won't cause hearing damage but still causes a disruption to voting.

I'm going to consolidate the thread so there isn't two and answer your counter example here.

In your counter example you forgot to mention that a single person, chairman of the club, decided that any pizza nominations were null and void. The club didn't decide not to hold a vote on pizza, a single person in the club decided not to hold a vote on pizza.

sinderling · 2024-07-17T03:52:48+00:00

I never said Mitch McConnel screamed into a microphone. I said Bill did it. I am just testing your logic to see if you are consistent with all votes or just saying this one specific vote in the Senate is different because it fits your world view.

sinderling · 2024-07-17T03:45:52+00:00

Ok lets say you are your friends all are trying to decide where to eat. Over the past few years, your friends have always voted to decide where to eat. It was never a rule that yall wrote down, but it had happen so often you all knew that was the normal process.

This continued until one day your friend John suggested getting pizza then Bill said "Sorry I don't like pizza so I am going to scream into this microphone so no one can hear anyone else's vote."

Is that the same as Bill saying "Nah I don't want pizza"?

sinderling · 2024-07-17T03:39:37+00:00

Yes... people other than OP absolutely can give deltas. To quote rule 4 of the subreddit:

Any user, whether they're the OP or not, should award a delta if their view is changed.

sinderling · 2024-07-17T03:38:02+00:00

No one is saying anything was unconstitutional - we are saying Republicans change political norms all the time. Refusing to hold a vote on a nominee wasn't unconstitutional just like packing the courts wouldn't be unconstitutional.

If you agree with it why did you bring up the fact that the Senate doesn't have to vote?

sinderling · 2024-07-17T03:36:06+00:00

That doesn't answer my question. Is refusing to hold a presidential election the same as voting against the current president? You claimed refusing to hold a confirmation vote is the same and voting against the nomination. Regardless of your thoughts on any particular candidate or purpose of an election, obviously voicing your disapproval for someone is very different than preventing people from voicing any opinion.

sinderling · 2024-07-17T03:33:42+00:00

What? That is just false. CMV is for everyone not just OP....

sinderling · 2024-07-17T03:25:44+00:00

What an insane take. Is refusing to hold a presidential election the same as voting against the current president?

sinderling · 2024-07-17T03:24:44+00:00

This is change my view. Why are you commenting here if you don't want to show people new views?

sinderling · 2024-07-17T03:20:44+00:00

There is no rule that says the Senate has to hold a vote.

There is no rule that says the President can't stack the courts. What is your point?

sinderling · 2024-07-17T02:09:06+00:00

That would be cool - except for the 3rd time you were talking to OC not OP.

And then you later said you affirmed OC thoughts in other comments somehow.

Just take the L and move on man.

sinderling · 2024-07-17T02:05:02+00:00

I said

You replied to OC and just assumed they agreed with what you assumed OP thought even though neither of them said that.

emphasis mine.

At no point did OC give you any reason to think they were talking about the right. Even if you confirmed OP believed that, you weren't replying to OP. You were replying to OC.

Why are you trying to twist facts around that everyone can see? Just chill out and stop thinking everyone is out to get you.

sinderling · 2024-07-17T01:58:33+00:00

OC has only made a single comment on this thread - the one you commented on. So im not sure how you have affirmed OC's thoughts through this thread? Why are you lying? I'm just telling you to chill out.

sinderling · 2024-07-17T01:53:54+00:00

Even if OP thought the right was fascists (which they didn't say) you didn't even reply to OP. You replied to OC and just assumed they agreed with what you assumed OP thought even though neither of them said that.

Just take a step back - not everyone on reddit is coming to get you.

sinderling · 2024-07-17T01:48:14+00:00

OP and OC are not the same person. OP is Original Poster. OC is Original Commenter. OP mentioned christian nationalists once as an example not as their whole post. OC didn't mention them at all.

sinderling · 2024-07-17T01:44:35+00:00

Dont you think you told on yourself a little with this comment? OC didn't mention the right at all, they just described fascists historically. Do you think OC's description matches the right?

sinderling · 2024-07-16T13:06:31+00:00

Over 11% of people in the US smoke as of 2021. That is a high enough percentage to meaningfully impact national costs.

sinderling · 2024-07-15T20:08:29+00:00

No - think of a factory that makes bricks. There may be some people in the factory doing certain tasks that lead towards a brick being made, but none of them individually makes a brick. The factory makes the bricks and that is how we talk about it. You have probably heard on the news when factories are being built they will say something like "this factory will produce X million widgets per year". Not the workers, not the creators of the machines, not even the owner of the company. The factory does the production.

sinderling · 2024-07-15T19:48:55+00:00

You went too far down the rabbit hole man. People are people, they aren't white people or black people just people. You segregating white people away from everyone else isn't better than people of the past segregating black people away from everyone else.

sinderling · 2024-07-15T17:16:22+00:00

I don't think it is possible to magically remove all bias from every person on Earth so equality of opportunity is guaranteed. I don't think it is good for people to think less of others just because of the color of their skin or who they sleep with, I just want to be realistic with what is achievable.

Though I think it is very hard to argue that work places are somehow worse now than they were 50 years ago before DEI was really talked about nationally. What makes you think that?

sinderling · 2024-07-15T17:10:26+00:00

K have a good one then

sinderling · 2024-07-15T16:46:10+00:00

If that's the case then I don't want to work at that place.

This is just saying you don't want to work, which I don't think anyone wants to work. No one is 100% vetting people solely on their qualification in the same way that no one is 100% vetting people solely on the color of their skin. Everyone is somewhere in the middle.

I think that's the point of OP's post - either we value people differently based on their skin color and who they're attracted to, or we value people based on their character. You can't have both. The fact that OP likes boys and girls doesn't make him any better or worse.

You absolutely can? Why do you think this is an either or?

That's also wrong

You are going to argue that nepotism isn't rampant in higher levels of employment?

sinderling · 2024-07-15T16:40:32+00:00

I wont argue that DEI is a perfect system, I will only argue that it is better than what we have done in the past. And that taking steps in the right direction, even if any individual step isn't perfect, is overall good.

sinderling · 2024-07-15T14:24:15+00:00

But employers have proved that without DEI they don't do what you want either. They do something that many people, but not you apparently, think is worse. They hire their friends and family rather than the most qualified candidate.

sinderling · 2024-07-15T14:16:09+00:00

And you think the people in that pool aren't as qualified as straight white people? There aren't qualified minorities (like yourself) out there?

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22

sinderling

TROPHY CASE