Ah, that makes sense. Thanks!

The real reason is that conservative ideology dictates that society will have winners and losers who end up in the correct spot in the heirarchy if society doesn’t interfere with the natural sorting.

So it follows that homeless people don’t deserve a “handout” or a leg-up just because they squandered their opportunities.

Leftists think that an ideology follows from a moral interrogation of the world as it should be, whereas reactionaries think the highest good is done by ensuring that people are in their correct spot in the heirarchy in relation to others; since some people are inevitably going to be homeless, there isn’t much to be done about it and the leftists complaining about it are just virtue signaling to get votes.

Their justification is irrelevant once you realize the actual ideological reasoning.

Edit: I’m confused by the downvotes. Anyone want to tell me how I’m wrong? This isn’t my ideology, but I think it’s useful to understand your opposition on more than a cartoon-villain level, especially since they are so effective at selling their ideas to low-information voters.

I’ve been promoted and the company still had to post the job publicly for a couple weeks to satisfy internal protocol. It’s insanity.

Michael Flynn is an excellent counterexample though.

Ok, maybe if you’re dying you can get the healthcare treatment that you need.

If you can find a doctor/hospital who will open themselves up to litigation and if you can get there. But you’d better be on the cusp of death!

Are we not merciful?!?

Thanks for the feedback!

I did select a language, and I do use a VPN.

I was not aware that a VPN would interfere with lemmy.world, as it works fine with other instances.

Is there a way to use a VPN with this instance? I live in a place where the local government has taken an interest in people’s web traffic, so I don’t want to go without it.

Let’s go full Thunderdome and institute bust a deal, face the wheel too.

In a word: Conservativism.

[…] we can also trace a longer structural change in the imagination of the right: namely, the gradual acceptance of the entrance of the masses onto the political stage. From Hobbes to the slaveholders to the neoconservatives, the right has grown increasingly aware that any successful defense of the old regime must incorporate the lower orders in some capacity other than as underlings or starstruck fans. The masses must either be able to locate themselves symbolically in the ruling class or be provided with real opportunities to become faux aristocrats in the family, the factory, and the field. The former path makes for an upside-down populism, in which the lowest of the low see themselves projected in the highest of the high; the latter makes for a democratic feudalism, in which the husband or supervisor or white man plays the part of a lord.

-The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism From Edmund Burke to Donald Trump, by Corey Robin

I’m fine with him being on the $500 bill if it’s a pic of his stroked out corpse holding the berder that finally got his cholesterol high enough.

You’re a satirical genius! Can I have your autograph? I’ve never seen such a good impression of a rabid Muskrat before.

I’d love to see your material on sovereign citizens next; their delusions are even more fun IMO.

It’s not displaying correctly on my app, that’s likely why.

I like your style.

Thanks for saying so! Birds are my favorite.

“For Republicans, the only hope is that when Trump is on the ballot in 2024 … he will turn out rural voters at a rate that overwhelms that phenomenon. It’s certainly possible,” the source said.

Isn’t it funny that the only “hope” for Republicans is to re-install a vile, amoral, nepotistic, habitually-lying, tax-cheating, proudly-ignorant, racist, fascist, rapist con-man who tried to overthrow the government?

Wait, not “funny,” the other one…

Stupid.

Sure, but Jesus would have smacked the shit out of Paul, too. It’s kind of been that way since the beginning of the religion.

I’m confused about what part is against her religion:

• calling kids by their name?
• not being a bigot?
• not making everything about her?

Regardless, we know whose religious rights will be protected by the SCOTUS most high: the one who is imposing her ignorant worldview upon a captive audience. Funny how believing in magic gets you extra rights in this country.

Oh, I was referring to the media and security as the ones being paid.

I don’t think he has the cash on hand to pay for attendance.

I always love how the Catholic Church gets to have it both ways: they simultaneously are bound by centuries of traditions that they revere, but are also not to held accountable for the damage that they’ve done merely a decade ago.

Have they apologized for trying to force their morally backwards religion on people? Have they funded lobbies to expand LGBTQ rights to reverse some of the damage they’ve done historically?

Do you think that the Cardinals who run the diaces who donated thone millions of dollars have reformed their ideas regarding same-sex marriage?

All the Catholic Church has done is to dress up their bigotry as inclusion, and credulous news agencies do their PR for them about how much the Catholic Church has changed to be more inclusive.

So I ask you, if you think they’ve changed: what exactly have they changed? They still lobby the government to impose their religion on the rest of us, they still believe that “acting on” gay urges is evil and weak, and they are still hiding child predators. The Catholic Church is an enormous institution, and merely replacing the CEO doesn’t mean that every franchise is magically aligned with his new vision.

So how is pointing out their actual values (a particularly ironic turn of phrase) “bad faith?”

They’ve shown their contempt for sexual minorities for centuries; I think we should believe them.

Yes, in the quoted scene Juliet is asking why Romeo has to be a Montague with whom her family is feuding:

O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name.

Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy: Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What’s Montague? It is nor hand nor foot Nor arm nor face nor any other part Belonging to a man. O be some other name.

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, And for that name, which is no part of thee, Take all myself.

where·fore /ˈ(h)werˌfôr/

ARCHAIC

adverb

for what reason. “she took an ill turn, but wherefore I cannot say”