As for your family discussion, generally it’s advised to avoid bringing up controversial topics because it almost never ends well.

That being said, I’ve found that the following statement is pretty universally agreeable:

Thompson led a company that was number one in the industry in denying coverage for routine and life-saving healthcare to people who had paid good money for and were legally entitled to coverage, meaning it’s almost certain that multiple people have died as a result of the policies he oversaw the execution of in the name of profit. So while I don’t condone murder as a method to solve problems with the healthcare system, it’s difficult for me to feel any sympathy for the victim.

It’s funny because the actual physics explanation is “they just do”.

I think I really agree with you here. Trump may have only had concepts of a plan but the Democrats denied even needing a plan in the first place.

Look, I’m just engaging in critical thinking here. I don’t believe everything I read on the Internet especially since people love just making up random crap just so they can have a story to tell.

I feel like they would have fared better if they went all in on the “corporations are gouging consumers” line and not try to convince people with GDP figures or the unemployment rate.

How would this commenter know that?

If that happens I will happily accept a CDU+SDP grand coalition. Just no fucking AfD please for Christ’s sake

Far-right German nationalist party slowly rising in vote share while traditional centrist and liberal parties squabble over the best way to keep them out of government while unable to form a stable government themselves

Where have I heard this one before?

“Have you committed war crimes?”

answers yes

“Okay, you’re not allowed in”

“wtf, clearly anti-Semitism, these are dark days for Australian democracy”

The majority of writers in English write books with the expectation that a majority of their readers will be native English speakers. And for the most part, this is true.

The vocabulary of native English bibliophiles is, on average, much wider than the vocabulary of someone who learns it as a second language. This is nothing inherent to speakers of English; almost everyone speaks their own native language better than a foreign language.

Complex plot lines are not unique to English either, but it is more noticeable when you consider the added mental strain of reading in a non-native language. Regardless, there are plenty of authors, as you have found, who will write simpler prose with more linear storytelling. Each writer has their own style. What might be meaningless filler to you could be considered flavourful world building or character building by someone else.

Literature is like food: people tend to prefer food from their culture over foreign foods, and if you don’t like certain cooking styles or certain flavours, you can certainly find food that better matches your preferences. And it’s also similar to how some people think rice is flavourless and boring while for others, it’s an integral part of the meal and it would not feel complete without it.

If you really like socialism this is the place to be

Lost, yes. Ready to risk everything trying to overthrow the Government, not so much. There’s a reason we remember 6th January 2021 and not 6th January 2017.

I don’t know what country you’re referring to but you’re probably correct.

Well, the first two (replacing first-past-the-post and eliminating the Electoral College) can be done on a state-by-state basis. There were ballot initiatives in a few states on the ballot in 2024 regarding instant-runoff voting. All of them failed, including one in Alaska that would have repealed instant-runoff voting and replaced it with first-past-the-post.

The Electoral College can be defeated using the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Napoleon wasn’t “appointed” as dictator by any legitimate government or by the people. He overthrew the Directory and the Constitution of Year III and made himself the dictator.

I don’t think so.

For one, the revolutionary sentiment isn’t nearly as widespread as it was in 18th century France. Yes, it’s true that many people are discontent with the current economic and political situation but the difference is that 250 years ago, the only outlet for discontent available to common people was to revolt, whereas in the United States and other Western democracies, a second option exists: the democratic political institutions. What this really means is that the right of suffrage and of elections has really sucked a lot of the will to revolt from the populace; it’s easier to get what you want by participating in the democratic process than by revolting, or at least that’s what a lot of people think.

In order for a revolution to start, you need to hit a critical mass of angry people motivated enough to risk everything to overthrow the system. The presence of democratic institutions like elections and referendums changes the maths and it makes it harder to convince people that they need to revolt in order to get what they want. In turn, it tends to mean that well-established democracies really aren’t prone to violent revolutions from the bottom of the sort that topple totalitarian governments. Rather, the primary threat to democratic states actually comes from the top—that the people in charge will try to exceed their mandate of power and take over the government.

Are you talking about the Paris Commune?

I don’t know much about it but I know they put back the French republican calendar while they had control over the city, which I think was pretty cool.

Businesses are bound to Microsoft Office products which only reliably work on Windows and Mac. Windows is the cheaper of the two, by far, and there are way more IT professionals that are able to work comfortably managing Windows systems than Mac ones.

I want to point out that this is already the standard for conviction. The finder of fact must find the accused to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt before convicting them. So from a legal perspective, everyone convicted of a crime already has been proven guilty to the highest possible standard. If there is any shred of doubt at all about the guilt of the accused, they’re supposed to be acquitted. It’s only possible in retrospect when new evidence emerges that exonerates the accused that it can be determined that the original guilty verdict was incorrect. You can’t really “force” this evidence to emerge with any amount of policy changes. It just happens over time.

For example, witnesses lie. Maybe five years after the fact they feel bad about lying and retract their testimony. Maybe some of the investigators assigned to the case just made up some evidence to get the accused convicted in court because they just thought there was no way he could be innocent and they just needed to cook up the evidence to get them declared guilty, and they can only admit that when the statute of limitation passes. Or maybe, three years later, a convenience store manager deleting old footage happens upon a CCTV tape giving the accused an alibi. Or maybe still, the accused was actually framed and their framers only got caught ten years later doing some other crime, and it turned out that they forged the accused’s signatures on those documents and used their computer to send those e-mails without their knowledge. I could go on.

So if your proposed standard is applied, it would not actually exclude anyone from execution because everyone who’s been convicted has already been proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

The state ending someone’s life for breaking its laws and then having people here who would normally condemn the use of capital punishment compare it to a revolution and call it justified just because the state in question claims to be socialist is just so uniquely Lemmy.