8 million people across 2,700 locations, almost all non-violent, to protest…

Do I need to refer you back to the original meme or do you actually think protesting counts as doing something in the US? Protesting hasn’t been effective since Republicans learned they can just ignore you.

The President of the United States was throwing a rally and, furthermore, we now know that Trump’s people coordinated with groups like the Proud Boys. That’s not exactly spontaneous or lacking centralized organization.

Also, I 100% guarantee you that if it hadn’t been MAGA, there would have been bodies on the ground well before they got to the Capital steps. The people in charge right now are the ones who are pro gun and ok with killing people they disagree with. They are also the ones who would argue for executing people for treason because that’s what the constitution says.

It’s not that a violent revolution couldn’t happen, but there has to be something or someone to rally around and there just isn’t yet. No one with the clout to actually pull this level of support has gotten to that point yet.

Yeah, but if you never make them say it they never have to confront how stupid their actual desired goal is.

What they want is for American citizens to simultaneously and spontaneously rise up in open violent revolution without centralized organization. If anyone thinks for even a moment that that is possible they are hopelessly stupid.

What they’ve been doing in Minneapolis, but amplified?

What do you mean, “but amplified?”

That they put down a tyrannical government as their beloved 2A states?

What are you actually asking for here?

There’s more population than politicians,

And approximately half the population is in support of it and the other half aren’t the 2A gun nuts.

the whole “we’re powerless” is bs that’s been conditioned unto most peoples worldwide via controlled media 'cos those in power know how dangerous it is for people to get together and start building up critical mass.

Go ahead and say what you really mean here and stop dancing around the bush.

If January 6th had been angry and violent liberals the crowd would have been fired on when they started trying to get into the Capital building.

The people who are against what is going on are typically the non-violent, non-gun owning, and sensible people. The people in power and who support what is happening in Iran are the ones who support violent revolution and have no problem killing people they disagree with.

Democrats have been saying that for 30 years. The excuse that you need guns to prevent the government becoming tyrannical was a farce since 1900, there’s no way that individuals with AR-15s could overthrow the military unless the military lets them do so at which point you didn’t need the AR-15s in the first place.

You can make an argument for home defense or hunting, but a shotgun or bolt action rifle are generally more than enough for that.

What do you want him to do exactly?

Beyond being outraged that people aren’t doing “enough” or “quickly” what do you want people to actually do? It’s easy to complain, it’s difficult to actually come up with a solution.

re American? Because it doesn’t make sense to say you’re ind

I’m gonna guess Canadian indigenous, probably a tribe that fled to Canada or was already residing in both countries such as Huron, Dakota, Sioux, or Cree.

This is also what immediately jumped to my mind when reading this discussion, it’s the trolley problem.

Just moved my parents onto Mint, they were hesitant at first but now doing great. MS is digging it’s own grave.

Honestly, the UN has been a farce for a long time because of this exact issue. If a handful of countries have veto power then the whole point of the group was moot from the beginning.

I never boycotted Reddit, I just refused to use their app and new reddit. I ended up just using desktop mode old reddit without an app. If reddit moved to an age verification I would just drop it completely lol.

I doubt Trump was thinking that far ahead. It’s far more likely that he did it simply because big Ag was backing him and they don’t need the subsidies to survive like small farmers do.

That’s why I said that being considered smart out and among the masses isn’t really an indicator of your intelligence. I remember at my college orientation they asked the crowd to stand up first if they were first in their grade, then second, then top 10, and then top 15%. By the end almost everyone was standing. I’ll go on to say that that university has an 85% graduation rate. So right there we established that those that graduate, barring some non-educational issue or those who are intelligent enough but unable to attend, are likely in the top 10-20% when it comes to educational comparison.

Even then, these are poor metrics for being “smart.” There are a lot of ways to be smart, you can be book smart, you can be emotionally intelligent, you can be wise, and you can have common sense. If it’s not uncommon for people to say you are smart as part of conversation then you likely are subjectively, but objectively that says more about the people around you than it says about your objective intelligence. Something like 20% of American adults are functionally illiterate.

Reading your listed accomplishments I would say that you are smart, and having the intellectual maturity to recognize your strengths and weaknesses is another measure of intelligence.

With the barriers to entry that Lemmy has it’s not that unlikely. It’s like an incel going onto 8chan and saying, we can’t all be the most edgy people we know.

According to this website there are only around 40-70k daily active users (monthly vs semiannual). If you look at total users we’re sitting on about 1.3 million with 11 million posts per day and 23 million comments per day.

So 0.015% of the world population on an obscure site which is not mainstream accessible.

EDIT: Just because you were one of the smartest people in your class doesn’t mean you are “smart.” I would argue that it says more about the other kids in your class than it does you, most people are fucking stupid.

“I only work on carbureted engines.”

OK, so you need to reach a threshold of 5% of the population before you’re allowed to have rights, got it.

You’re just attacking me, not my argument

If if was just a matter of a handful of business owners being racists, then those racist businesses would be out-competed by non-racist businesses that appeal to everyone

You skipped the whole counter argument (comparing to scabs and unions) that this lacks the social structure to support that behavior. If you tried to open a business that wasn’t racist then the racist people would come and threaten you, this isn’t happening with the Uber situation.

Because it isn’t! The scenario you described is literally the exact sort of thing the Civil Rights Act exists to stop! You are literally advocating for allowing denial of service based on protected classes!

The thing is that Uber is not performing any discrimination, they are enabling other people to discriminate against each other and attempting to still provide service through it. Claiming that Uber is discriminating is functionally not true.

You’re being pedantic, they don’t care as it pertains to whether they will provide you with service. They do care so that they can match yours and other people’s requests.

The difference in what I am saying and what you are saying is scale and you are completely ignoring the rest of my argument. The scale at which you would have to be a minority for this to impact you significantly is somewhere in the 1-5% range (as in your minority is only this percentage of the local population) with the assumption that the other 95-99% are opposed to you. This is why Uber providing this as an option is different from the cases which the Civil Rights Act was based around. Hell, this is why scabs are effective against unions as well.

A diner not serving black people is impactful because a handful of people are the business owners and are effectively gating you out. Uber allowing those people to select only a specific preference means that anyone who doesn’t set restrictions will break that system and actually benefit from it (more business).

This also goes both ways and is potentially international, Japanese could choose not to serve non-Japanese, a black person could choose not to serve white people for comfort or security.

You’re fundamentally not understanding why Uber allowing people to make this decision is not the same as 1960’s segregation.

But that’s not how Uber works, Uber pairs drivers with riders and has no guarantee for service even now. If I open my app and there are not drivers available then no service will be provided, this isn’t Uber discriminating.

Uber doesn’t care what your race, gender, or political leaning is, they want to provide you the service you want. So long as the option goes both ways this only hurts the people who opt into the program, not everyone else. The only way this could hurt others would be if those who choose to opt in (as in they only want a certain thing) get priority in the scheduling or if you live somewhere where you are the overwhelming minority.

In the first example, if you say you only want female riders so the system sends you every woman that comes into the system instead of putting you in the same queue as everyone else but skipping you if the next client doesn’t match your preference. In this case you are being skipped in the allocation of riders and actually missing opportunities due to your preference.

In the second example, if you are still living in a sun down town then getting Uber rides is probably not your biggest problem.

Even now, Uber drivers are independent contractors and can cancel service whenever they want. If the driver pulls up and thinks you’re sketchy they can cancel the ride, there is no obligation.