President Donald Trump went off the rails when asked about California wildfires during his first full day in office. He claims city officials are diverting "limitless" water to the ocean through a "massive valve."
Naw, playing it off as that fucker having a limited mental capacity takes away from the culpability of his actions. Hanlon’s razor absolutely does NOT apply to global leaders: the only assumption we can make is that everything he does is calculated and the effects of which are 100% intentional.
People with mental removedation might do something harmful because their DNA dealt them a shitty hand and their mind isn’t equipped to self-correct in a socially acceptable way.
When Trump does something harmful, it’s because he wants to cause harm, cuz he’s an evil sack of shit.
I will say that although obviously my opinion doesn’t matter (I’m just some guy on the internet, right), I think that it is deeply counter productive to ban the use of a word a) so completely innocuous and b) in all circumstances regardless of context. We must try not to be dogmatists, after all. The useage of the word is very important is it not. One would not ban a person for saying the word ‘nazi’, for example, (and here is the really important bit) in most contexts. If the person were to make a statement that suggests beyond reasonable doubt that they support nazi actions, then we could probably reasonably suggest that they receive a ban. In such a case they have demonstrated opinions that fall beyond the contract in which we engage by using a forum like this one.
Similarly: consider my useage of the banned word above. Ask yourself not if it was offensive, because offense unless deeply intentional is subjective. Ask yourself instead if the useage was malicious. Ask yourself if it demonstrated an intent to breach the social contract. Consider this. And consider the value of enforcing arbitrary rules in a dogmatic sense, which is to say in a thoughtless sense, without consideration beyond the plain text. Ask yourself how best you can serve your community, and how you can serve those who try to make use of it. Remember that we are all of us here united in our interest in free and authentic (social) media, away from the propaganda and talking points that have become commonplace elsewhere. We make genuine attempts to communicate, and banning any useage of a single word regardless of content is extremely silly.
Removed by mod
Naw, playing it off as that fucker having a limited mental capacity takes away from the culpability of his actions. Hanlon’s razor absolutely does NOT apply to global leaders: the only assumption we can make is that everything he does is calculated and the effects of which are 100% intentional.
People with mental removedation might do something harmful because their DNA dealt them a shitty hand and their mind isn’t equipped to self-correct in a socially acceptable way.
When Trump does something harmful, it’s because he wants to cause harm, cuz he’s an evil sack of shit.
Demented, at his age it is what it is and we call it dementia
Removed by mod
I will say that although obviously my opinion doesn’t matter (I’m just some guy on the internet, right), I think that it is deeply counter productive to ban the use of a word a) so completely innocuous and b) in all circumstances regardless of context. We must try not to be dogmatists, after all. The useage of the word is very important is it not. One would not ban a person for saying the word ‘nazi’, for example, (and here is the really important bit) in most contexts. If the person were to make a statement that suggests beyond reasonable doubt that they support nazi actions, then we could probably reasonably suggest that they receive a ban. In such a case they have demonstrated opinions that fall beyond the contract in which we engage by using a forum like this one.
Similarly: consider my useage of the banned word above. Ask yourself not if it was offensive, because offense unless deeply intentional is subjective. Ask yourself instead if the useage was malicious. Ask yourself if it demonstrated an intent to breach the social contract. Consider this. And consider the value of enforcing arbitrary rules in a dogmatic sense, which is to say in a thoughtless sense, without consideration beyond the plain text. Ask yourself how best you can serve your community, and how you can serve those who try to make use of it. Remember that we are all of us here united in our interest in free and authentic (social) media, away from the propaganda and talking points that have become commonplace elsewhere. We make genuine attempts to communicate, and banning any useage of a single word regardless of content is extremely silly.
I may start using that word again, only in the context of MAGA.