KombatWombat

Has to be H, because I live there and if I had to get every meal imported to me that would be very annoying.

I support avoiding redundancy in general, but there are advantages to those that make them worth it if you get enough of a quality of life improvement for them.

I use my air fryer basically every day and really appreciate that it can finish cooking some things before my oven would even finish preheating. Cleaning is also much easier, I imagine it uses considerably less energy, and it tends to cook stuff more evenly in my experience. And it isn't some fancy product, just the cheapest one I could find when I decided to try one out years ago. I've used my oven for a couple of things that wouldn't fit in the air fryer over the years, but otherwise it's basically been reduced to a stovetop with a clock.

I also use it for things I would otherwise microwave because it cooks it much better even if i have to deal with a short preheat. So nowadays my microwave is just left unplugged until I need a quick injection of heat, like for freezer-burnt ice cream or melting some butter or cheese.

I don't think I'd get enough use out of a slow cooker to commit to the space, but I imagine it's a similar story for people that would use it often. Same deal for like a rice cooker or ice cream machine. Also, my family was able to get an old toaster oven for cheap after our real oven broke, so these appliances can offer a cheaper alternative too.

The history I stated was what I found from looking up the slogan. If it was co-opted to some other cause later, I genuinely do not know about it.

Look, if he did some actually criminal shit that I don't know about, he should have been arrested, tried, and sentenced accordingly. That would have been justice. An individual simply choosing to kill him is murder from a vendetta. No accountability. No argument for others as to why he deserved it. It means he can't be made into an example of a villain that we overcame as a society. He is instead made into a victim, so him and everything associated with him is treated with sympathy it should never have.

But as far as I know, he was hated for spreading ignorant shit ideas. Those can't be defeated with a gun, and that is the real danger he represented. Bad ideas need to be identified as such to establish the person giving them as ignorant and not worth listening to. Gunning him down like this bolsters his arguments instead of dismantling them.

Celebrating the murder legitimizes it as a valid response for saying things that people don't like, and that's a dangerous precedent for anyone trying to change the state of things for the better.

You do you, but I think blocking a whole instance because of some bad mods is an overreaction. Particularly when that is the largest one on lemmy. Getting bad mods identified and removed would fix it for you and everyone else, without needing to sacrifice access to a lot of quality content and conversations.

Also, finding lemmy.world moderation to be intolerable but continuing to post regularly to lemmy.ml makes me doubt your judgement.

I am sure some of it is virtue signaling, or at least people restraining themselves from saying what they really think to not be cancelled or whatever. Prominent figures do still need to worry about censoring themselves so they maintain their platform, or at the very least that they aren't easily strawmanned by taking them out of context.

But I think most of it is sincere anyway. You can dislike someone, even think the world would be a better place without them in it, and still feel bad about them suffering a tragedy. You probably know someone who is annoying to interact with, but that doesn't mean you want them to be publicly gunned down. Because even if they behave in such a way that befits some sort of karmic retribution, you recognize a punishment can be overly cruel and not justified by the associated "crime".

And honestly, you could even coldheartedly criticise the strategy of it. Killing someone like this makes them a martyr and gives them and their cause a great deal of public sympathy. They are immediately cemented in the public consciousness and forever added as a historical figure instead of simply becoming forgettable when their influence wanes. Before this, me and my friends would probably recognize the name Charlie Kirk but wouldn't know much else about him. But now it's given everything he's said a lot more attention to us and others and made it harder to be able to criticize things he said that really do deserve a lot of criticism.

In the political commentary I've listened to, it's like there's a feeling of winning on a technicality, or by cheating, or something similar. You did not beat him in the marketplace of ideas and have been robbed of the opportunity of ever doing so. If it is indeed a victory, then it is a hollow one.

What are the fascist origins? From what I have read, it was first used by Taras Shevchenko, a poet who promoted Ukrainian independence from tsarist Russia and was described as "the founder of the revolutionary democratic trend in the history of Ukrainian social thought" and a utopian socialist. He didn't seem fascist in the slightest. Then it was popularised by various nationalists in the Ukrainian War of Independence who established a short-lived parliamentary republic. That's not fascist either.

Ok fair point on the 0%. I guess it does depend on whether you consider water to have absorbed itself or not for soaked.

I would count a grouping of water as having absorbed itself personally. But either way, it technically can't absorb any more water, so it is always at the absorption max, whether that's 0% or 100% water.

Pro-death penalty, gender-specific application, and ignoring due process probably puts this on the right.

Plenty of people on the left advocate for self-defense even to the point of lethal force but almost all of those would want an investigation and trial, and that probably means holding the killer in jail until a bond hearing. Carte blanche trust that the killer was justified is something unlikely to be offered outside of individualist people with a very strong distrust of the government to interfere with people's lives, and those tend to be on the right. It also implies women need a legal exception as a vulnerable group which reinforces the traditional idea that they are dependent on external protection.

I would say this still works.

Assuming we are not compressing it, you cannot fit more water into water. Therefore, water is saturated with itself. Therefore, it is soaked. Therefore, it is wet.

Most deodorants are both deodorant and antiperspirant, but you can find options that are just the latter and otherwise unscented. You could also pair it with cologne if there are types that don't bother you, but people mainly care about not smelling sweat.