Imagine

I deduce that your phone never randomly locks while you’re using it as a satnav. Lucky you.

It all makes sense now, why he hates infertle women
Just because they can’t give birth to tasty babies they could give him

Yeah.

Perhaps ++C == Java or something.

I’m sure that’s offensive to some, so apologies for airing the thought.

Can confirm.

Nice dick, bro.

I think that your line of argument is very strange indeed and I’m not sure that porn websites are quite as full of women making choices completely free of coercion as you’re making out.

If you had asked me where on the Internet women have the most autonomy, have their preferences enacted most carefully and where their consent was prized, I wouldn’t have guessed in a thousand years that you expected me to answer “porn websites”.

You have a strange moral stance where looking at still pictures of boobs is terrible but watching porm is fine. Where do you stand on looking at fully clothed women?!

Removed by mod

Thank you for this.

I’ve edited it to make it more factual and perhaps less emotive by replacing the phrase “republican troll” with “republican pretending to be left leaning” and provided a link to where they replied “cope” when I pointed this out to them previously. I don’t know if you can see the reply, it won’t expand for me, but I promise you that’s what it said. I don’t know whether you count arguing in bad faith just to persuade your political opponents not to vote as trolling, but I certainly feel it’s not good behaviour and worth pointing out to folks who are taken in.

Only in order to pursuade folks not to vote democratic (which is bizarre because Trump and his party are pretty rabidly on favour of “finish them” outcomes in Gaza).

Link: https://lemmy.world/comment/12097015 I can only see the reply “cope” in my inbox. On the website the 1 more reply never expands for me.

Removed by mod

Note: Linkerbean is a republican pretending to be left leaning, here just to dissuade left-leaning folk from voting dem.

I said so to them a while back and their reply, since deleted, was “Cope.” https://lemmy.world/comment/12097015

Downvote and move on, but you’ll get only nonsense if you engage.

What was he, and what was on that data crystal he gave you?

Reflection, surprise, terror.
For the future.

Inflation is a real thing and will really happen. It’s just that charity programmes have absolutely nothing to do with fuelling inflation. You have cause and effect utterly backwards.

The difference I guess is that I’m anticipating the possible negative outcomes and saying they should be resolved simultaneously instead of just saying “throw money at them”.

The difference is that I’m hearing the people doing the things and analysing the results who are saying no strings cash is far and away the best thing you can do. All the other stuff has to come later.

If it’s 103 outside and you haven’t drunk anything since the morning, your mouth is parched and you’re starting to feel dizzy and I show up with a shrink and a sachet of electrolyte-rich powder, I’m just not helping. If I show up with three pints of cool but not cold water then you might be prepared to take some electrolyte powder in it but I bet you $100 you don’t want to wait for me to mix it into the first pint, because here’s the thing, the water is the main thing you need. Pint 2 or 3 you might accept the electrolytes, but frankly they can wait. And don’t bother with the shrink yet either. Don’t lead with the powder, don’t lead with the shrink, lead with the water.

Minimum wage desperately needs to rise. It’s not either or.

Not quite, it isn’t, not in overall message, and if you read what I said, you’ll see that I didn’t object to any additional help, I just insist on substantial cash first and reject most firmly your absurd histrionics about inflation.

I didn’t object to any of the extra help. That’s a straw man. I just have to keep reminding you that giving people in abject poverty substantial chunks of no-strings unconditional cash has a large and growing body of evidence showing that it’s more effective and cheaper than leading with non-cash interventions, which are slow, have limited long term benefits and high drop-out rates. You do them too, later, but you lead with cash. Actual cash. You know, to fix the lack of cash issue that’s causing most of the rest of the problems.

Seriously? You went from giving some homeless people enough money to get accommodation and food to a global inflation crisis?

I mean ,that’s some really absurd fear mongering right there.

You’ve got to be a Republican if you can swallow or invent nonsense like that. No, global inflation crises are caused by corporate reactions to war and stock market scares, not by charity projects.

Who the f*** ever heard of the global RedCross inflation crisis of 1987?! There wasn’t one!
The World Food Programme guacamole price hike of 2014?! There wasn’t one!
The International Rescue Committee credit crunch of 2018? There wasn’t one!
The The World Health Organization cancer treatment rising expense scandal of 2023? There wasn’t one!

Why didn’t these things happen?

Because giving people in dire straights enough to get them back on their feet IS NOT a cause of any kind of inflation. Stop making out that your crazy catastrophe theories are even slightly plausible,

Charitable crisis solving is safe. It’s unequivocally good for the economy. Keeping people on the streets and hence out of work is bad for the economy. Alleviating abject poverty is unequivocally GOOD.