One could argue language rules are social rules tho

This is why I think they are all into crypto, because they see it as the next big currency and want to be the person controlling it

That’s the best and most straightforward explanation I’ve ever seen about this, well done

sometimes

You should look up some old labor movement songs

You can do it on paper for free at least

Because they live somewhere else

Right now, because we also have all the cartoons from the past to watch.

KIngdom of Loathing

Kingdom of Loathing is probably one of the best games ever imo

I’ve never seen a sentence use the same dumb logic it criticizes so succinctly before

Don’t twist it. My point was that there’s people who actively dislike this regime and are doing something about it. It’s too counter the idea that all Americans are for this regime. Your approval of how some people’s tactics is irrelevant, it’s still showing that the people aren’t a monolith.

Yeah, only if you ignore all the people fighting against it

The engineer destroys the planet, those monsters are just trying to fight back against pollution!

Bro came back a week later to keep an argument going he started lololol got mad when I said I didn’t like apple, you wonder where the fanboys get the rep from lolol using this genxboomer ass meme like it’s a dig that’s hilarious

You’re the one who started this thing off by speaking in extremes. Again, you’re taking “sometimes some people don’t support you so you won’t have someone holding your hand 100% of the time” as “it’s logical that you’re going to be alone forever”

That’s illogical, binary thinking. Things aren’t so black and white. Some people will have an estimated 98% reliability for emotional support, some might have much lower. It’s circumstantial to the person and the situation.

With your logic, unless something is 100% going to happen, it may as well be 0%. That’s like, almost an inverse of a gambler thinking that even if there’s a miniscule chance of winning the lottery, it’s 100% guaranteed.

Did… Did your even read the article you posted?

In humans, there is evidence that infants exhibit altruistic behavior beginning at a young age. For example, infants as young as 14–18 months of age assist others in obtaining out-of-reach objects and help to open cabinets for others.7 Infants engage in these behaviors without reward or encouragement from an adult and expectedly without knowledge of concepts such as reciprocation and reputation.

Previous behavioral research suggests that humans willingly interact with strangers in ways that are beneficial to others, even when it is not in their own best interest.8 Additionally, humans have been reported to continue to engage in altruistic behaviors even in situations when there will be no future interaction.9 Fehr and Fischbacher3 suggest that if two strangers are allowed to engage in repeated anonymous monetary exchanges in the laboratory, there exists a high probability that altruistic behavior will spontaneously emerge. Therefore, these findings propose that there appears to be a natural tendency for humans to exhibit altruistic behaviors.

Literally parenting a child is altruistic in nature. Sometimes, as defined by the article, reciprocal.

Reciprocity, which is similar to altruism in that the action may be harmful to the self and beneficial to another, involves the expectation that the other person will act similarly in a subsequent interaction.

Your perspective is twisted, you need to go out and touch grass and interact with people in person if you think everything is transactional.

So where’s this “logic” you speak of that no one ever does this for anyone, and it’s a universal trait to not have this experience?