By that logic any smaller predator that feeds on small animals is a “cat” and any large predator that feeds on larger animals and/or hunts in packs is a “dog” which is… Not at all how nature works. Foxes are canines that exhibit a lot of classic canine behaviour and very little cat behaviour in top of many behaviours unique to foxes, domestic cats are not actually solitary creatures just solitary hunters hence why they develop colonies, some wolf species are solitary hunters such as the maned wolf, birds of prey also fill the same ecological niche as cats, as do weasels, chimpanzees are also apex pack hunting mammals too but no one would ever say they’re running “dog software”, heck humans are the ultimate Apex pack hunting predator, does that mean wolves are just running “human software”? Lions and hyenas exhibit completely different behaviours and social structures from both domestic dogs and cats as well as each other, lions also aren’t the only large cats that hunt in groups, cheetahs can as well when they form a coalition. It just seems like a dumb way to classify animals as if dogs and cats aren’t extremely diverse and complex animals in their own right and instead every member has to be forced into these awkward and inaccurate “hardware vs software” stereotypes.

Mainly birds of prey I imagine.

Foxes don’t share all that many behaviours with cats though, they share more with dogs, so I don’t know why people always say this.

What would the D even stand for? 🤔

Well I’m trying to avoid sending anyone after the commenters en mass hence why I censored them but if you look in my comment history you can find the thread about a month back.

Those were not the only original definitions of giving by a long shot. Another original definition was to provide, offer, impart, communicate, or pass on something, (hence the phrase “giving off” which has been around for a long time, example: it’s giving off radiation), etc. It’s not gen Z’s fault you don’t know all the definitions of giving.

Among a hoard of other career politicians, he is not solely responsible for Trump being elected in any way shape or form.

You know Trump was first elected BEFORE Biden was president, right?

Your votes don’t exist in a vacuum. There absolutely needs to be election reform to make third party voting a more viable option instead of a liability, but it hasn’t happened yet so for now you live in a reality where you’re voting in an imperfect system and trying to will the fantasy of a perfect system into existence instead of acknowledging that isn’t helping anyone, least of all people who want to be able to actually vote third party.

The context is that it was a thread where people were debating whether people ever say that both sides are the same, which devolved into a debate over whether both sides are the same in some places. I’m not sure how saying they’re like Sarumon vs Sauron is explicitly saying one is worse in the third one, considering this was in response to a meme comparing them to Sarumon vs Gandalf. Aragorn in this comparison is their equivalent of a third party.

Maypull said very little in their response so, I’m sure you can add something if you try.

Here’s 3 examples from just a single thread that I was a part of not too long ago (I’d have more but I don’t actively save threads/comments regarding this topic so this is from a thread I could find via my replies that wasn’t deleted).

People have absolutely been doing that, I see it constantly here.

As much as it would be nice if the world worked that way, that’s not how the world works unfortunately.

Removed by mod

No, sadly with the way US voting works at the moment the chances of a third party winning is microscopic, so voting for a third party is only taking votes away from the only party that stands a chance of beating the republicans. Statistically third party voters would be more likely to vote democratic than republican if they didn’t have a third party option, so in reality the more people voting third party the more they’re helping republicans win. It sucks but that’s the reality.

That’s the problem, for republicans “genocidal racist” IS a voting demographic they’re trying to appeal to.

I mean, they’re technically calling black people the N word by proxy (it’s meant to essentially be white + N word to refer to a white guy pretending to be/acting black). So it seems like a case of “if you’re not black you probably shouldn’t say it”.

They didn’t redefine giving, it’s literally being used for its original definition. Just add “energy” or “vibes” at the end of the sentence and it clarifies exactly how it’s used. If someone sees your outfit and says “It’s giving Beyoncé” -> “it’s giving Beyoncé energy”, your outfit is reminding them of Beyoncé. As in it is providing/offering said Beyoncé-like energy, aka one of the original definitions of giving something.

I agree, though I also think there’s a discussion to be had about society’s obsession with punishment over anything else, and how sometimes it’s okay to let go of the past and appreciate that someone has become a better person and is working to attone for that they did and do good things from that point onwards, which is overall better for the world as a whole than them being forced to suffer endlessly for their past actions for the sake of vindication or revenge. If you’re going to take the stance that someone can have a moral debt they must be forced to pay, then you have to likewise acknowledge that there must be a point at which it can be paid. If you try to claim that some things can never be made up for and thus some moral debts can never be repaid, then that only highlights the problem with that sort of reasoning. Because if someone takes a life then saves a life, and you claim that one is not enough to make up for the other, then you’re essentially treating life 1 as more valuable than life 2. And what if they take 100 lives but save 1000? Can human lives even be stacked up against each other like that to say which group has more “value” than the other? That’s the paradox of a moral debt, something can not simultaneously be priceless and yet also not hold enough value to balance the scale against itself at the same time.

In real life this can be complicated further because it can be hard to judge whether someone has truly learned from their mistakes and genuinely changed their ways, but in a fictional story you often get to see for sure that the character truly is sincere. So to tie that in to what you said, just because a viewer/reader is capable of accepting a character’s redemption in a fictional setting, where they are 100% certain that the former villain has had a change of heart and feels bad and will continue to do good things into the future, that doesn’t mean it’s a moral failing on the audience’s part. But it’s also worth noting that being willing to give someone a chance to improve themselves and grow as a person instead of demanding their eternal damnation and punishment isn’t a moral failing either even outside of fiction.