Casinos are a parasitic and non-value added industry, exploiting lower classes and without any material gain.

It’s probably complex, but the end result is that it benefits democrats and that’s the important part. The way politics works is that you work backwards from the outcome you want, creating the narrative to drive to that outcome. Republicans don’t like mail in voting because it benefits democrats. Democrats like mail in voting because it benefits them. Same with the voter ID conversation. It’s actually pretty easy to create conspiracies to support narratives. In the case of mail in voting you can say that it’s easy to commit fraud and that’s why it shouldn’t be allowed. But how do you disprove that? Especially to the people who find it convenient to believe it.

What does “statistically” mean to you?

No that’s my more thoughtful cousin. I think the simplest solution is to burn it down.

Safe spaces are a micro border, a way for people to separate themselves from other people for their mental health. Should they be allowed to do so and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders? I think it does. I think people instinctively want borders to protect themselves from others who might mean them harm. It’s natural and inherent to humans. Just curious what you thought, given your stated stance on borders.

How do you feel about safe spaces

I’ve heard crazier things on lemmy, but I think it’s sarcasm in this case.

If you have any requirement for entry then it’s not really an open border and you need some kind of enforcement to enforce those requirements.

The paradox of intolerance is the one that’s been getting to me lately. People forgot that its a paradox and think it’s justification for them to attack people they disagree with.

But mostly just don’t want to see points of view that we disagree with.

It helps to think of getting sick as the price you pay for boosting your immune system.

So basically anyone who wants to come here can come as long as they are law abiding and not diseased or whatever?

How do you have open borders and yet restrict criminals or suspected terrorists from entering? Either you have no restrictions or you have some restrictions. If you have some restrictions then you will have illegals that need to be deported which means you will need some kind of enforcement to do the deporting. There is no feasible way to run a modern country with truly open borders.

It also won’t prevent you from collecting a gang and bullying people.

So nothing then. If you want something then you take it, if you are more powerful. That sounds problematic.

People have been making jokes since weeks after 9/11, and too soon has been a meme the whole time. I’m assuming and hoping that it still will be in 100 years.

What was the racism part?

I agree. One thing that bugs me about lemmy is how intellectually dishonest and blind people are when it comes to their own biases.

Everyone (pretty much) agrees that fascism is bad, but Antifa is a movement that means more than anti fascism. Antifa is branding or marketing in the same way that the anti defamation league is, or like the patriot act put a certain spin on a bill that stripped privacy rights from citizens. Groups use branding to gain power and aren’t all encompassing as to their motives or actions. In the case of antifa it’s less of an actual organization and more of a rallying cry that gets used for a wide variety of people with different motives, and it’s detractors point to a wide variety of actions or intents (real or imagined) when criticizing it.

All proselytizing or just the religious kind?