Yeah sure he is.

He doesn’t need a ceasefire. He can just stop withhold financial support to Israel and all of this madness ends.

He doesn’t care. He only cares that you believe he gives a shit about a ceasefire.

You seem mad bro.

U mad?

I love how much it tells us that your this mad about even the idea that you could be inconvenienced or annoyed by a protestor.

It tells us so much about you than you’ll ever be able to say.

Theirs no confusion here other than that which you were trying to make with your statement.

I’m just pointing it out so that its clear to others what you are doing: a rhetorical bait and switch.

They’re just idiots complicit in the system. They’d rather have genocide if it comes wearing the right party colors.

They don’t truly believe in protest or freedom of speech, but they themselves are also functionally worthless in this regard.

Their hand wringing can and should be ignored.

Biden is overseeing the slaughter of children in Gaza right now and these people are mad about books. If you are focused on some minor damage to books and not the point the protestor was making, you are the problem.

Did they shoot someone or are you trying to set up a false premise?

Cus it sounds and looks like you are setting up a false premise. They vandalized some books. No one got hurt.

You know who did shoot some one today?

Israeli’ troops. Israeli trooop shot someone today, that’s who is doing the shooting. Its Israel.

I mean its not like they bombed an aid convoy.

Also, you are now here, talking about it, so it worked.

It’s propaganda meant to string you along and give the sense that Biden is “doing something” or that there is some daylight between the parties on this thing.

Also, the first time the price of something rises in the 5 minutes it takes for me to get my shopping done and get to the checkout, I’m taking a shit on the floor.

I’m with you I’m saving my dump truck load for the conveyor belt at the register.

Imagine walking down the aisle, normal day, no thoughts about the prices or any of that.

Then one day you walk down the aisle but this time you forgot your phone in the car.

Different prices. Then some one walks is coming close from the other end of the aisle. The price changes. They walk past, nonplussed. A few seconds later, it switches back.

Ok. I will now seriously consider moving over to proton. I can’t trust a for-profit buisness to stay true to its mission. However, Open-AI has shown that I can’t blindly trust a non-profit to do so as well, but its ‘towards’ being able to trust.

If they don’t individually own the property but pay for upkeep and there is no landlord… that’s a housing cooperative, no?

Squatter mansion.

There and better and worse variants, but the fundamental issue I’m identifying is the tendency to want to believe ‘good stories’. I think it’s a profoundly human flaw, related to our evolution and history as a species that tells stories to transmit information. We believe a good story. It’s pleasurable to lose yourself in story. You remember good stories. But a story being ‘good’ has little and less to do with it being true.

While we’re discussing this issue in the light of conspiracy theories with no basis, I think the flaw extends to all domains of human life where communication and evaluation are necessary.

Because its pleasurable to believe in “secret knowledge”, that you are in the knowing group, and everyone else is the “out group”.

GME, and its associated cult.

Christians and Zionists.

Qanon.

Its all basically the same at its roots, which is that humans take pleasure in a good story, and rather than believe what we think is most likely, we more often choose to believe that which makes us feel special.

Bruh, in Idiocracy, they at least wanted to do the right thing, even if they were too dumb to do so.

Scientists in the room who have to base their experiments off other peoples data and results:

Tongue in cheek but this is actually giving me particular headache because of some results (not mine) that should have never been published.

grindpilled narcissists.

Thats a great term, but I think we need a term for the perputally-on-linkedIn “influencer” types.

Case in point:

So, like, inherent to your question is an assumption that LinkedIn is for “something”, as in, it fulfills some need.

And I’m just not quite sure that it does. Tbh, if I am hiring and I find out you are one of “those” people who are chronically on LinkedIn, I would seriously considering not hiring you, precisely because of that.

Its not clear to me what, if any, role linked in fills beyond keeping a roladex of people I’ve worked with but would never want to connect with otherwise. Even then I only keep a profile because of the assumption that I should. Its not clear to me thats a good assumption, because I still don’t see what need I have that LinkedIn is filling that a list of names and e-mails couldn’t also fill.

Just post your resume here.