Edit: You are using the false dilemma wrongly. Here’s an example of a false dilemma: “Well, we need to be happy. So, do you want consumerism? Or communism? There’s no third option.” We can still find ways to be happy in a bad system, whether or not we engage in politics.

Original reply: That’s what I’m saying. How would you know the concept of “health” if being unhealthy wasn’t a thing? Same thing with happiness.

You can’t have happiness without having sadness. In the same way, you couldn’t have things get better if things couldn’t get worse. They are two parts of the same coin. So enjoy the moment. Do not let some roadbumps throw you off the road. ;)

Man, I hate question headlines. They entice you to click a link while promising an answer that may not come. You do get ads, though.

Wish we lived in a society were titles were like:

• Is global warming a hoax? No.
• Are you eating microplastics? Probably.
• Did the president have unspoken relationships with a donkey? No proof, but you are free to speculate.

Edit: Nothing against OP. I’m just venting about this little thing.

This is just my 2 cents, but I’d go for the CPU. Reason being you can upgrade RAM later with more sticks. However, it all depends on your use case, as this is the old memory-cpu tradeoff dilemma.

Want speed? Go for CPU. Want to have many tabs open, or guarantee a program does not crash due to low memory even if it doesn’t run at full steam? Go for memory.

Many virtual machines open? Definitely memory. Gaming? CPU… most of the times.

They aren’t real “rights”, but they are real. You just defined them.

I don’t mean to be hard headed. I feel like I agree with you since the beginning on the idea of it. I’m just stuck on the “isn’t real” part of it.

Because I can very easily say “rights” aren’t real as well. It’s just pixels on a screen. :)

No, it’s in there. The “rights” are part of a number of societal rules which depend on the “dance” (of life). In this case, the fighting for said rights and communicating that they exist are part of the “dance”.

The rest of it I was describing life, because consequences matter where I live at least. And since it seemed “natural rights” were bound only by the consequences you are willing to take, then they are the same as life itself, which I thought was pretty funny.

I mean, life is as life is. Would you stop talking on the street if society decides that is a crime, or if that means you’ll be discriminated against? Some people might, but you can’t expect everyone to do it.

It’s all a big dance and societal rules fluctuate depending on who’s dancing. You just gotta dare live life (preferably in a good way).

It’s ok, I hereby declare it is a natural right to face the consequences of your actions.

I think it’s fair to say absolutely 0 cars is also a problem. But we could use a bit more public transport, and less cars than what we currently have. Especially where we know many people move “in mass”, like cities in rush hour.

Every side has propaganda. This is good propaganda.

In all of life there is a balance.

deleted by creator

After reading your comment I agree with you. I was being fat-phobic inadvertently.

Ah, I see. I tunnel-vision’d on that one comment. But ye, that’s a fair point.

Is it OK to mock the femininity of a gay right winger? He could act straight with a “kick in the butt”

Then what did you mean by this question?

So, I don’t think it’s ok to be fat phobic. Someone’s personal appearance should not be shamed, just for the heck of it. However, the topic of fat phobia will appear with greater frequency (whether for or against) in political communities. That’s what I’m pointing at.

And to choose a political community as one’s safe space means that sometimes the conversation will come up, and some people who disagree will show up. I find it rather “safer” to engage in non-political activities and leave all of this discourse somewhere else. As if saying “I’m ok with who I am, so instead of seeking validation online, I will do what I want to do.”.

If I somehow said fat-phobia is okay, that was not at all my intention, so I apologize for that.

My comment said it is NOT OK to mock:

• Femininity
• Homosexuality

It also said it is OK to mock:

• Right-wingers.

I don’t see what you mean by mental illness? Are you saying one can only be right-wing if one is mentally ill?

It is not OK to mock him for being feminine or gay. That’s their right. However, you can mock him for being a right winger, if he has made an informed decision to become one. Especially if they are so right wing they become nazis.

What about non political communities? Like memes? Or racing games? I find political communities are very direct in their communication, and the topics are pretty divisive, as such is the nature of political discourse. But sometimes it’s ok to go offline, or to enjoy hobbies. Maybe chess?

I say this because if you are the kind of person that wants to be offended, there is no easier place to do that then a political community. And too much of a good thing can also be bad, so taking a break is pretty ok.

I would say, if you have one such disease or issue, do not self victimize everytime you see a meme like this. Use Occam’s razer instead. What did OP want to mock when he created this meme?

• People who are fat because they are undisciplined?
• People with a specific disability?

If you suffer from this disability but have a head between your shoulders, you probably already know it was not meant for you. But for all others, please try not to misdirect hate where it wasn’t intended.

Otherwise you risk getting offended at literally everything on the internet.

Edit: Sorry, OP, I see your point now. Hope you’re cool. <3