WorldWideLem

joined 1 year ago
[–] WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would it matter? If they died living well according to Jesus's teachings they'd be rewarded in heaven. Their mortal death would be inconsequential.

That said, they could probably survive as many homeless do through donations and begging.

[–] WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

It doesn't necessarily have to, but then you have someone like Trisha Cotham in NC who switched parties to give the GOP a veto-proof majority and has been voting with them in lockstep ever since.

If they weren't planning on acting as Republicans they could just as easily become independents.

[–] WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

"Person we hired to say things says the thing" more at 11.

Really irresponsible reporting, to be honest.

[–] WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I was interested in it but at the end of the day Dorsey got Twitter into its initially mediocre state, and he's endorsed RFK Jr. as well as Musk's purchase of Twitter. So should I really expect it to be any better? I'll keep an eye on it but my expectations aren't terribly high.

[–] WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The goal isn't to create successful states, it's to create politically safe states. Doesn't matter if the state crumbles as long as that crumble is red.

[–] WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone's social status or reputation.

[–] WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

The real question is how much would I accept in payment to use Twitter. It's probably not a lot, but it surely is not negative.

[–] WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't think it's that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.

If a person's reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?

[–] WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 75 points 1 year ago

Not just US interests, but European and Ukrainian interests as well. There was a multi-national effort to remove Shokin. You think Joe Biden orchestrated all of that to get his son a cushy board membership? It's laughable.

[–] WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

"If you work for part of the day you still get the day off" is certainly an...interesting perspective.

[–] WorldWideLem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

If the company you're representing would prefer you didn't, then sure.

Let's use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, "save fascists", would you prefer the store couldn't prevent them from wearing that?

How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?

 

Somehow this is the only country on earth where this seems to happen. When talking about shootings involving guns, okay, fine, the US is certainly an outlier there, but every country has cars and police.

This is murder.

view more: next ›