No, The Donald was encouraging political violence and was becoming a legal liability for Reddit to continue hosting. But they needed to ban a major left wing subreddit at the same time to do a “both sides bad” thing and preempt the fascist talking points about social media having a liberal bias.

Wait, like the drug dealer? but seriously, “they have moderation, so you don’t have to read or engage with facts, since they have a viewpoint” isn’t the dunk you think it is.

though, to be fair, kulaks are bad.

wait, like the drug dealer?

I always joke that right-wing politics is all projection. But here we are with the cult of capital being dismissive to non-believers

Dark Eucharist of the Real God!

It is almost like Left and Right have different beliefs about LGBTQ people. Even if there is progress over time on both sides.

Hmm, I seem to remember that it was BRD and not the DDR that decided that Gay and Trans people in Nazi concentration camps had to stay there. And it was the DDR that created state ran gay bars. But no, we will continue to only compare the homophobia and transphobia of 1950’s second world nations with post-2013/2017 reductions in homophobia and transphobia first world nations. It’s not like Cuba is one of the most progressive nations in the world on LGBTQ rights post Family Code changes.

If the guy was a chill roommate, probably preferable to cockroaches. Creepy or violent would probably push things towards the mostly harmless insects.

No, there are really tangential analogies about how self-interested behavior can have negative consequences, but it is and has always been based around a bunch of numerous myths. Externalities is a better description of this.

Elinor Ostrom investigated management of the commons and the original description of tragedy of the commons was a complete lie. The commons were enclosed so that in this transitional stage of feudal lords could become businessmen that could profit off of using the land rather than taxing a peasant community living off of it. The enclosed commons is an asset to generate profit, where if enough of an increase in profit could be achieved, that could be reinvested, meant that exhausting the land would be an economically rational strategy. Where, if a peasant community is using it to sustain themselves, they have to carefully manage and steward that land so it is still producing for themselves years later, their children, and their grandchildren. The complete opposite of what the “tragedy of the commons” describes.

Depends on the person TBH