Revisionism. Just last week you assured me that she was going to win, and that the republican party would collapse on itself. Hang on to your ego.

WRT the first panel, I feel that way too.

That said, is this ragebait?

They do! They’re where I leave all of my used motor oil, dead batteries, and bedbug-ridden mattresses.

Come on. Just because you can subvert their policies by dropping stuff there indiscriminately doesn’t mean you should. Most of them say, right on the bin, that they’re for donations of clothing and shoes only.

Too bad more people didn’t have their minds changed by Paine’s “Agrarian Justice”. What a banger.

The trick is to pack up a big box full of stuff and give it to them all at once so they don’t have time to look through it and refuse it.

They absolutely will refuse things they know they’ll have a hard time selling, and trust me they have unique insight into what people want and don’t love the idea of warehousing unsalable merchandise. Many Goodwill location’s FAQs acknowledge that they refuse to take certain things. Salvo has a whole page dedicated to why they refuse certain things.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

This is really clever if you’re okay with convincing yourself that you know exactly and completely what other people believe… Otherwise it’s a reductionist hot take filled with logical fallacy.

the US foreign policy never change between the two parties

This is such a reductionist take on an incredibly broad and complex topic that I have to wonder whether you’re joking.

Isn’t it common knowledge at this point that Jill Stein is literally a spoil candidate

To all but the most naive it is.

That’s totally fair, and to clarify my own stance: I don’t think it’s likely, or even possible that the human population will drop to 0 in my lifetime, let alone in the next few hundred years.

I’m primarily concerned about a compounding of factors that lead toward an increasingly higher probability of that outcome. I’m thus unwilling to take a “we don’t have to worry about human extinction because it’s statistically unlikely” stance. I’m also not attempting to assert that that’s your stance, either. I don’t know enough about what you believe to make any assertions about that at this point.

I really appreciate your reply, and I’m not trying to be snarky, here. I came to Lemmy, initially, looking for higher levels of discourse than are available on Reddit, and I get a little high-and-mighty about that. So I also apologize if I’m coming off as an ass.