it’s a distinction with out meaning. every opinion on the face of the earth is “ripped”.
but it doesn’t matter because i don’t hold you to the title of the article. i am blaming the authors of the article itself
blamed, smashed, cooked, slapped, ripped. it’s all derided as useless news marketing
sugar, do do do do, oh honey honey, do do do do
untitled, huh? hmm
looks like silver dragon scales,
spoils of victory?
fall of good law?
potential?
lol, usualy when you compare something… its with an ajacent example, not the answer.
listen i know you took the article name verbatim… but at no point, and i mean at no point was he “ripped” over anything. someone agreeing with everything you said is not ripping someone… i don’t know what ripping someone would entail exactly, but it aint it.
like a person taking a nap in a coffin, if it escapes you at first like it did me
because our buying habits are shaped by necessity and availability. to argue that the individual needs to change would require agreement to the degree of millions of people all at once, who have the privilege of choice make a substantial change, and even then the systems in place would defend itself from this change. in a discussion about needing to hold corporations and systems accountable, you argue for the responsibility of the individual, a concept that uses the most effort for the smallest gain, if any.
the concept of the free market is and has always been bull shit. the free market ideology requires the consumer to have: 1. maximal choice, 2. maximal and complete knowlege of every facet of a product (a. it’s ecological cost, b. it’s social cost, c. it’s manufacture, d. it’s transport, e. its storage, f. it’s operational harm ect. ) and every facet of every other option to compare. as well as truth in marketing which is antithetical to marketing itself.
in a discussion about the need to hold the system accountable, attempting to narrow it to the individual is a distraction to progress
then if you agree, i am sorry for assuming the worst
‘ they are not being sentenced as terrorists, just sentenced as committing terroristic actions’ is an argument without purpose.
the discussion is around the inflation of the crime to scare people from pushing against what is happening.
you are dismissing talk of holding actual problems accountable, to focus on inconsequential individual accountability, specifically using the “but you have are using an iphone, i am very smart” argument to not actually have to argue a point. you have been consistently dishonest in your messaging and it shows.
i suppose that is unpopular, nothing is more ongoing then a crunchy vegetable being soft.