Extremist religionists have been hammering on the anti-atheist propoganda for centuries. Reddit hasn't even had the opportunity, historically, to have a significant impact.
docAvid
joined 2 years ago
The two-party system is a system, and systems can be changed. If the Republican party finally implodes, just as when the Whigs did, it will be an amazing opportunity for progress. We need to be ready to move.
Ranked choice has to precede a pluralistic system. We've had similar upheavals before, a long time ago (one presaged the civil war), but as long as we have first-past-the-post, it will always settle into two-party lock-in. But, and this is the good news, after the civil war, we had the second founding - a massive overhaul of the Constitution, for the better. If, in the aftermath of the death of the Republican party, we get another chance at that, (hopefully without all the killing), maybe we can enact ranked choice, eliminate the electoral college, ban gerrymandering, establish mandatory voting, add an enforced "none of the above" option to ballots, expand the Supreme Court, uncap the House of Reps limit, eliminate the senatorial land-vote in favor of proportional representation, get fully publicly funded elections, and and and am I asking too much? I just want a real democracy.
Yes, but it's more than that. The electoral college only affects the presidency. We also need ranked choice voting. The first-past-the-post system assures the dominance of two parties, which can play the voters off each other to do whatever the donor/capitalist class wants. Mandatory voting and fully publicly financed elections would also be huge wins.
That doesn't mean they won't vote for him in a race against Trump.
I've seen a lot of them say they won't. I've seen people who I know in the past have argued that we have to support Clinton or Biden in the general election, because Trump is worse, and even campaigned for the lesser-evil candidate, turn around and say they can't support Biden this time. I don't know if they will reconsider, as the election gets closer, or when faced with reality of a ballot in front of them - I certainly hope so - but I'm not taking any vote for granted in this election.
As an aside, while the violence against Palestinians has really caught people's attention, I don't know why people seem more mad at Biden this time than last time, or more mad than they were at Clinton. There hasn't been a president in the last few decades at least who would have handled the situation better; on other issues, Biden has proven much better than I expected when I held my nose and voted for him last time; and Trump is a cornered animal, much more dangerous this time around.
Fucking apeshit craze-balls, makes sense, business as usual.
Bibi loves that because he can basically permanently avoid a 2-state solution, and if it ever does happen, it's just official apartheid. Separate, as the United States learned the hard way, is never really equal. The only realistic solution is a single secular state.
Medication helps a lot of people, and CBT is very effective for others. I've never heard of a "technique" that's effective against depression that can be reasonably described like that, but I'm not an expert. Would love some concrete examples.
Programming is the art of juggling of state and control flow
Sure, stateless functions deal with and impact state in some way. If that's what you meant by your previous comment, that's fine, but that's honestly not what would typically be meant by "juggling" state.
The part about declarative languages has nothing to do with state. Declarative languages do not give the programmer control over flow, the other part of your definition.
Learn Lisp, and you will never again be so certain about the difference between a programming language and a data format.
No, my question does not imply a pure functional language at all. Pure functions exist in languages which are not purely functional. Most of the functions I write are pure functions. I could have a workflow where I work with another programmer who handles the minimal stateful pieces, and I would only write stateless functions - would that make me not a programmer?
(There are also purely functional languages, by the way. I just didn't remotely imply there were, or make any claims about them, at any point in this thread, prior to this parenthetical.)
The part about declarative languages has nothing to do with state, or functional languages. Declarative languages are a whole different thing. Of course declarative languages handle state. The comment I was replying to said "Programming is the art of juggling of state and control flow". Declarative languages don't involve juggling control flow.
Have you ever heard how religionists talk about atheists? I respect the right of people to believe whatever they believe, but I don't have to respect their actual ridiculous beliefs. Bringing up the FSM, which is specifically aimed at dismantling the absurdism of creationism, is pretty funny. Are you a creationist? My dad was a real Christian minister, and while I don't believe as he did, I would never mock his actual Christian beliefs. But I'll mock the idiotic beliefs of fake-Christian creationists any time I tell like it.