TheKingBombOmbKiller

joined 2 years ago
[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago

When I did a Google search of #killallwhitemen, I found plenty of articles about how controversial it was, not celebrations and encouragements.

And there is a giant leap between a thought exercise about how women feel unsafe around men, and encouraging calls to kill all men.

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 15 points 6 months ago (4 children)

“Kill all men” - Lauded, celebrated, even encouraged.

Do you have an example of this? Because as someone whose suggested death would be celebrated, I've not seen those reactions myself.

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

Do you have any examples?

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What would accurate odds in the previous two presidential elections look like to you?

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

Here is a direct quote from 538:

538’s forecast is based on a combination of polls and campaign “fundamentals,” such as economic conditions, state partisanship and incumbency. It’s not meant to “call” a winner, but rather to give you a sense of how likely each candidate is to win. Check out our methodology to learn exactly how we calculate these probabilities.

Source

In 2016 they gave Hillary Clinton a 71.4 % chance of winning, and in 2020 they gave Joe Biden 89 % chance of winning. They are dealing in odds, not calls.

And even if it isn't getting through to you, how were they wrong in 2020?

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 13 points 6 months ago (7 children)

If I told you that you had a five in six chance to roll the dice and not roll a one, and then you rolled the dice and got a one, was what I told you wrong?

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 27 points 6 months ago (11 children)

They don't call elections. They tell you the odds.

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Doctor Strange 2

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

By that logic 2000 is the last year of the second millennium, 2001 is the first year of the third millennium, 2002 the second, and 2003 the third.

The era started at year 1, and not year 0. So the new millenniums starts at years that ends with 1.

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 29 points 7 months ago (3 children)

It's also the third millennium of the era. 1-1000 AD was the first, 1001-2000 AD was the second, and we are now in the third.

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 36 points 7 months ago (7 children)

That is what the culture war is. The effort to create an environment where publishers and artists have a harder time including aspects labeled "woke" because of a loud minority will harass the people involved, review bomb the products, dominate the discourse with bad faith arguments, and generally minimize the potential enjoyment of anyone who is the intended audience. This is what forcing an agenda upon artists looks like.

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 48 points 7 months ago (9 children)

And when the artists chooses to include all genders, or races, or trans people; what would you call the effort to force the artists from removing this from their art?

view more: ‹ prev next ›