HelixDab

I don't have to; you have to provide good sources to back up your claim. If I say that god exists, and then claim that the bible proves is, well, I'm not proving my point because I haven't yet given any solid evidence to my claims. This is how a debate works when your arguing like a rational adult.

And, for the record, CNN/NYT/et al. are also biased, but they're (usually) more factually based. Bias is not the same as factually incorrect; bias is reflected in which stories you choose to report, and what language you use in reporting. And example of a source that would be both unbiased and highly factual would be Reuters News Service, or the Christian Science Monitor. Similarly, Jabocin is strongly left-biased, but also highly factual.

Three of the sources you cited are not credible because they continually play fast and loose with facts and don't bother verifying information. One of them was unsourced entirely, and the backup you provide is not in English--or based in the US--which makes determining the veracity difficult.

In short, you aren't acting in good faith.

If by pluralism you mean competing viewpoints in political systems, then the ability to shut them down means that those voices have failed to successfully compete. That's like saying "No one wants to work anymore!" when you don't want to pay workers the prevailing wage, and then crying because your business fails.

My general understanding is that you're forgiven if you choose to accept Jesus. (Note that I am not christian, but was raised as such.) You are not required to accept salvation. Actions, by themselves, mean nothing; you can be a fantastic, moral person, and work all of your life to help other people, and without accepting Jesus you're still damned. OTOH, if you have truly accepted Jesus, then ipso facto you're going to work tirelessly to help people; actions are a natural consequence of the belief. Therefore, someone that acts contrary to the teaching of Jesus is not saved, because they do not have true belief.

For a real world example, Jimmy Carter would be a person that you could say would be saved (...if any of this was real); his effort demonstrates the faith he claims. OTOH, looking at all of the televangelists, you could quite reasonably say that their daily lives contradict the teachings of Jesus, and therefore no professed belief can ever result in their salvation.

Daily Mail
Fox News
NY Post
...And a Twitter account that doesn't link to a credible news source.

Would you like to try again without the sources that continually fail fact checks and exhibit a far right bias?

Anyone that is familiar with the ways that communism has existed in Warsaw-pact countries, in China, in southeast Asia in general, etc., should be able to see that. LGBTQ+ people were, if anything, even more fucked in most communist countries. There certainly wasn't any meaningful religious tolerance, since religion was banned in at least some communist countries (or wholly controlled by the gov't).

I'm in favor of communism in principle, but not in practice. I'd love to live in a commune, but I don't think I'd want to live in a communist country.

Most instances also defederated from lemmygrad (commies) so its not generally politically left either.

IMO, Stalinists aren't exactly tolerant either. You're still talking about a totalitarian and authoritarian viewpoint, even if they're on the left on economic matters.

IMO, if your point is to make a community welcoming, then you have to get rid of intolerant voices. That--broadly speaking--means that you have to remove people advocating for any kind of absolutist, authoritarian rules. It's easy to see at a macro level, but it's all fuzzy at a micro level.

Yeah, so, uh, m.facebook.com has made a sudden and radical change in the last few days. I'm not sure what's going on, but it's currently not usable for me. I don't know if that's happening to multiple people.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a dissent to the ruling joined by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that the decision "unjustifiably grants true threats preferential treatment."

...What the fuck? Am I taking crazy pills? In what fucking world do Thomas and Barrett advocate for a sane and rational approach to anything?

I'd heard that they're redoing the first one. Hopefully that's true, because I was never able to get it to run well on my PC. And when Witcher 2 came out, it was XBox and PC, and I'd switched to PS. :/

I got it on PS4 as a gift, about a month after it came out. The biggest problem I had was that my PS4 wouldn't read the disc from the factory because it was dirty (???), and that I had to immediately update it. I didn't play the TTRPG, but I've played TTRPGs similar to Cyberpunk. I have enjoyed it immensely. I put it down before finishing it, because I maxed out my level, and even though there was still a ton of storyline and random quests, there was no more advancement. That was kind of a bummer, but that was the only reason I put it down. (Well, that and I've generally lost interest in video games.)

I'd put it at a solid 9 when I first got to play it; I didn't experience any game-breaking bugs, just some annoying things. I very much enjoyed the experience. I understand people being frustrated that they didn't have a solid netrunner experience, but that didn't bother me all that much.

Kinda wanted to see if I could go cyberpsycho though...

"Disagreements" are for things like tax milage, or whether or not a school needs a new football field. "Disagreements" are not for things like, "jews should be gassed", or "trans people are all pedophiles".

Ah ha! Okay, now I see it. It took me a while. I was clicking on the 'Moderators' that's on the lower left, and that was the one that's giving me a 50x error!