I’m surprised beehaw hasn’t defederated from the tankie instance.

It would only contribute to OpenStreetMaps, not Google of Apple Maps.

brat

or over a very wide area

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic

Pandemic already means global.

No it doesn’t.

… John Lennin?

TIL you can customize the icons on Libreddit.

Gonna have to check the docs – can I make my own colorschemes??

I think you’re right up to a point. I disagree about teaching people how to think. I credit a particular lesson in early high-school in a media studies class with giving me the framework to critically consider the media I consume and the headlines / viewpoints I read.

Whether debate is the best format for that, I dunno. But I do think teaching kids how to think critically is valuable.

He’s actually just harassing that other user based on an interaction they had in another thread.

He’s doing the same in my inbox:

Everyone that disagrees with me is a bot

🥱

Genuinely no sense in replying

🥱

Oldest cop-out in the book. But certainly the best the tiny both-sideser brain can come up with.

🥱

Still waiting on that counter-argument, both-sideser.

Legit nobody has correctly identified why the people in this thread are completely avoiding using the word “Palestine” and are instead using “Gaza.”

Lmao the person you couldn’t argue against did exactly that.

Imagine you spent the effort you are here petulantly calling me a bot trying to spin up an actual counter-argument.

Your little head would probably explode.

We won’t be confused, we’ll know people like you allowed it to happen.

If you think throwing away your vote means going further left, then I have a bridge to sell you.

^ what it looks like when a both-sideser gets cornered, folks!

Prove it’s not. You’re the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous.

That’s not at all how the burden of proof works.

I don’t know why you think that would change it so it’s impossible for me to address your reasons.

You’re leaping to the assumption that the scenario you provided is even analogous to the one you replied to. It isn’t. You need to start by proving that it is.

That’s called an analogy.

Not when it isn’t analogous to the situation presented. Which yours is not.

No it doesn’t.

Prove it.

Because the parties you established are the voter, and the party asking for votes. Those are not the parties presented in the original argument.

If you introduce more parties, it doesn’t change the dynamics of the situation.

Of course it does.