I think many people underestimate the level of impulsivity associated with crime.

The average criminal who breaks and enters is not doing research based off your bumper stickers to determine your weekend routine so the house is empty.

They usually are just walking down the neighbourhood and spot an open door, run in and grab valuables then leave.

People on Lemmy (and the tech community) also skew heavily to tech industries so I’m not surprised they are shocked and disagree that saying you work for Microsoft is a bad thing.

Yes, yes, yes, no.

If your point is that I engage in immoral practices; of course I do.

That wasn’t my initial argument though.

As I have said in another comment, if I worked for Microsoft I wouldn’t wear a shirt complaining about my work killing people in a foreign country because I would realise that makes me a hypocrite.

In the same way I wouldn’t be vegan, work for an abattoir and complain to my CEO that killing animals is wrong.

Is the fact that you’re so defensive over my comment not an indication for you to do a little introspection?

You can’t claim the moral high ground if you’re enabling the very thing you’re complaining about.

I don’t comprehend why people find this controversial other than that they may be uncomfortable with their own choices and dislike when some random on the internet has pointed it out to them.

If I worked for Microsoft I wouldn’t wear a shirt complaining about my work being used to kill kids because I would have the presence of mind to realise that I would be a hypocrite if I did that.

I took the hit to my overall earnings by not working for a corporation that kills the planet/tramples on workers rights/engages in war crimes.

Have you?

Imagine thinking you have any moral high ground but work for a massive corporation.

I’ve already blocked Lemmy world and I’m OOTL what happened now?

Do you really need to read volumes of theory to grasp what is fundamentally a rather straightforward concept?

Leftism shouldn’t be locked behind intellectual elitism.

TL;DR the capitalist state will use threats of violence/actual violence against threats to capitalism which includes those who stand for progressive ideals. Leftists believe this is a justification to use violence against the state.

I hope the TVs make a recovery.

Happy to wait and happy if he never releases haunted chocolatier.

Stardew has already given more than I ever expected.

This won’t embolden white supremacists at all…

Get. Off. Reddit.

Well at the bare minimum you can unionise.

Hypothetically, if Hitler saved a child from being hit by a car would you publicly sing Hitlers praises and be happy to make positive quotes about it?

Does being on the right side of a single issue negate everything else?

Not sure I agree as it seems like black and white thinking.

I.e. I could imagine a scenario where someone is very obviously/admits to using neopronouns disingenuously and that would break my social contract with them to honour it.

If I make an assessment of neopronoun usage on a case by case basis I can still avoid witch hunts. It’s similar to how I determine in real life if someone is an asshole or not.

Another way; I can support a person who I genuinely believe uses neopronouns while denouncing and excluding someone who doesn’t.

My preference is for completely community moderated platform.

People essentially vote for content moderation. Likely susceptible to gamification but I’m still interested in seeing it in practice.

Is it still invalidating when someone using neopronouns is doing so disingenuously?

Mods will always be a problem.

I’ve yet to encounter a well adjusted human who voluntarily mods.

This was pretty much what set me on the path to radicalisation.

The system felt so unfair and then to learn that there were people who could do exactly this just because they were born into a family with large capital it was infuriating.

For one brief moment, at least we got Skyrim (even though it was a buggy mess on release)