CriticalThought

joined 5 months ago
[–] CriticalThought@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

I am curious about this as well. At least in some cases, it seems to be due to “alternate facts”, e.g., https://lemmy.ca/comment/13198294

[–] CriticalThought@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Thank you for sharing what seems like a genuine reply.

Of course they are

Could I please ask for a bit more info here? The way this is phrased, it sounds like it is obvious and goes without saying, but I haven’t heard of any NATO attacks on Russia. Is there something you would be willing to reference beyond “common knowledge”?

[–] CriticalThought@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Interesting. Genuinely, thanks for your reply— I’m beginning to think there’s been some sort of misunderstanding (likely on my part). I definitely was not defending Pug’s comment...

[–] CriticalThought@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Russia needs to defend itself against NATO is not spin.

Genuine question: why? Is NATO attacking Russia?

[–] CriticalThought@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Of course! Increasing genocide is of little consequence compared with suffering people’s judgment. Glad we share priorities

[–] CriticalThought@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Indeed! The actual consequences of (in)actions are unimportant so long as claimed intentions are pure…

[–] CriticalThought@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)
  1. Claim to be anti-genocide,
  2. Act in a way that increase genocide,
  3. Accuse others of being pro-genocide,
  4. Revel in moral superiority

chef’s kiss

[–] CriticalThought@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Doesn’t vote, gets a lot of genocide instead

[–] CriticalThought@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

ITT: a bunch of non-native English speakers lecturing native English speakers on the meaning and usage of English words in colloquial English :-/

[–] CriticalThought@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ok, not a downvoter, but I’ll bite. A system with more than one party is more democratic than a system with a single party. Are you asking which of the two major parties in the US is the “second” party, making the US more democratic than if there were a single party? If so, I see why no one is answering. If not, perhaps you could clarify your question?

[–] CriticalThought@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I’m not sure why you believe this is false? From https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx : “Who decides how many Justices are on the Court?: The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.”

view more: next ›