Basically, if you disagree with the moderators about what is appropriate content for a community, it is difficult to find any path forward.

Really if you believe that God created the universe, then C logically follows.

But if we were created in the image of God, then B is very likely, too. Just look at what we do to characters that we create in The Sims.

I promised myself that I’d try my best not to argue with people on Lemmy over completely trivial things, but sometimes it can be a challenge.

Our timeline is even stupider than the Biff timeline.

“Entire Trump team hated Elon Musk”…

If you’ll recall, after Trump’s first term, it was revealed that the entire Trump team hated Donald Trump.

Basically, any marginally competent person will hate working with people like Trump or Musk who make drastic changes without any reason or even any idea of what they’re doing.

My stupid brain… When they said they took the principal to “go live” on a farm, I initially read that as if they were beginning their live stream.

Unfortunately, second-guessing yourself is a vital skill. Imagine if you could never change your mind after your first thought on a subject.

AOC told a story about how a pro Israel person offered her a huge campaign donation, which she declined. One of the reasons she could easily decline it was that she already had enough money. By that time, her seat wasn’t in that much danger.

I’m not saying that AOC would have taken the money if she had a smaller campaign fund. There’s no way to know that.

But you can be sure that if we did proper campaign finance reform, and stopped every instance where a single source of money can create undue influence, then a lot more politicians would be able to afford to be honest.

Our current system nearly guarantees that honest politicians will be forced out by corrupt politicians who can easily accept huge donations.

What’s really weird is that sometimes when you don’t do this, logically choosing the appropriate emotion, you’re actually sort of doing the opposite, illogically choosing an inappropriate emotion.

For example, let’s say that you’re angry at somebody for something they did. If you pay attention, you’ll notice that you actually don’t stay angry the whole time. What happens is that you start to feel less angry, like you are just about over it, and then you think about that thing they did, and you get angry again. It’s not completely conscious, but you’re choosing to remain angry, usually for no reason. If you just didn’t think about that thing, you’d stop being angry.

For me, I’ve noticed that when I do this sort of illogical thing, I can’t seem to get past it until I go to sleep that night. Sleep seems to break the pattern. But most of the time, I can control it nowadays.

“The more people I kill, the fewer who will be alive to resent me.”

I don’t think Donald Trump is capable of speaking like that.

There have also been a few “this you?” sort of messages responding to people outraged at 8647 who had previously posted 8646.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he did this primarily to make the news.

Serial killers often have this desire to be remembered. The same desire that Trump has.

Trump and serial killers have a hell of a lot in common, right down to their pathologies.

Probably the most significant difference between Trump and your garden variety serial killer is that Trump is responsible for countless more deaths.

Well, that, and when you hear their neighbors talk about serial killers, they always say, “I never would have believed it was him.” But if you opened a closet at Trump’s home, and found it stacked with dead bodies, you’d say, “I always suspected he had a closet like this.”

The logical end to that sentence would be something like, “I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me, and in fact, in retrospect, it seems like it was a mistake for President Trump to appoint me as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services in the first place.”

Of course, RFK Jr. didn’t say that, though. And people shouldn’t be taking advice that relies on logical thought from him, either.

This is how you get past the problem of Senate confirmation hearings when the person you want to appoint is so horrible that the process could expose things like how they’re less of a Nazi sympathizer and more of an actual Nazi.

Similarly, Trump’s team has repeatedly denied that Elon Musk was the head of DOGE in order to reduce the amount of congressional oversight that he receives.

If all of these Republicans, including members of congress like Rand Paul, are complaining, where are their actual teeth?

If they have even the tiniest bit of integrity left, they should be saying, “If he accepts this plane, which would be a huge crime, I will personally do everything in my power to ensure that he is impeached and removed from office.”

The problem is that he doesn’t have the authority to do this via executive order. So if he does create this illegal order, it will almost surely be struck down by the courts, just like the previous one was.

But in doing so, he can claim credit for trying, despite never doing anything.

It’s easy to assume that Witkoff is, to quote the article, “a bumbling fucking idiot,” but it’s not outside of the realms of possibility that this is a deliberate act of a Russian asset.

If you assume that Witkoff is a Russian asset, then he’d want fewer intelligent Americans in the room when he speaks with Russians. It would be silly to think that he’d be getting orders or giving a report in a meeting with Putin, as there would be other less high profile opportunities, but assuming he’s heavily compromised, there’s a good chance he’d give something away to his American team. Fewer people means a smaller chance of being exposed.

I’m not saying that it’s off the table that he’s “a bumbling fucking idiot.” Just pointing out that there are other possibilities. Witkoff is described as a real estate tycoon and a cryptocurrency trader, so there would have been plenty of chances for him to be targeted by Russia in the past, similar to how they targeted Trump long ago.

Bad headline, WaPo. “Judges say” is pointless. There’s simply no other explanation. Somebody is saying, “I know where you live.”

I think that the pros are obvious. It should simply be legal, and other comments have given good reasons.

However, there are some cons that I haven’t seen mentioned yet.

It impairs you, so any activity where that is a problem, like driving, may need extra attention or public education.

For smokers, inhaling smoke is dangerous.