evergreen

I see, wow. That is weird. I have family that lives there in NL and am wondering now if they ever see this. Thanks for clarifying.

Are they using explosives and car fires to threaten immigrants specifically or just people in general?

That's a pretty subjective statement as it really depends on whom you're defending it to. Does consuming any amount of alcohol make one an alcoholic? I suppose differing people will have differing definitions.

MTG's face always reminds me of one of those old school puffy catcher's mitts.

That is an insane amount of data. I'm trying to fathom what 82TB of text files looks like and I can't.

2nd half in raw binary because I use Arch btw.

I really wanna know what's printed on the shirt and hat. I feel like this is shirtsthatgohard material without the shirt even saying anything.

Ok cool. Apparently nobody likes being called out, do they. Welp, I accept your answer, and since you act in such good faith, I won't be surprised to see a disclaimer from you on any post or comment that contains the name of a for profit company here on Lemmy because it's likely shilling. They will feel your wrath!

Weird, I was under the impression that the right wanted to classify it as a mental disorder. Do they both now, but for different reasons?

Lol likewise.

I am talking to you in the best of faith I can have with someone that seems like they're harassing people that in my opinion are just here providing good content. It seems ridiculous. I wanted to make my opinion known. I have no agenda I'm trying to push. I don't work for kagi or google, or any other company that would benefit from something like this.

If this is going to devolve into a deposition on whether I'm talking to you in good faith or not, then I think we're done. I'll be on the lookout for any possible shilling.

I'm not ignoring it. It just seems disingenuous. To me, it comes off as, "hide the source if it comes from an entity that makes money, because someone may be accidentally advertised to. Reduce context in order to avoid supporting a profitable entity. Professianal journalism is bad because the journalists get paid via subscriptions or ads. Fuck them for wanting a career in journalism."

I hate ads as much as the next guy but realistically, how are they going to support themselves. Should I not post The Guardian articles (hope I'm not shilling here) since they make money to pay their journalists?

Yes, I think we do have to accept that mentioning a company's name can have the effect of keeping them in the public consciousness, but so long as they exist and provide services that we interact with, we are going to need to refer to them somehow.

I agree that actual shilling is bad, and is something I do not want to see here, but I just don't understand or agree on your criteria for shilling apparently. At best, it could have possibly been shilling. But then by that same logic, it would apply to such an enormously broad range of conversation. Now we're just walking talking shilling machines.

And then you want to call it out every single time? With no reasonable proof that they were intentionally shilling? I just think that's going too far.

So by your logic, if I post information I found on Wikipedia and list it as a source, cool. But if I find information on Yahoo and list that as the source, then I'm shilling for capitalism and must be called out?