openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
Sociopath. Even if you hate the guy, if you’re a public figure like trump, the least you can do is muster a bit of empathy.
But he can’t, because he can’t even fathom the concept of empathy. It’s completely foreign to him.
Electing sociopaths is how you get war and genocide, as we’ve known for millennia. And we’ve given a total sociopath the levers of genocide, both abroad and at home.
He doesn’t need to have empathy, he could just say nothing.
Had me until you said “muster a bit of empathy”. Trump would never.
Could never, even.
Public figures have even more reasons not to muster empathy for genocide supporters
Wish we had public figures that were unbothered by it for cool reasons.
Respect is earned while someone is alive and healthy, Biden has earned no respect.
That’s actually not how respect works at all, what your thinking of is adoration. Respect is lost, if you don’t start with a baseline of respect for everyone, you don’t respect anyone.
Respect and derision are not the only choices.
e: for example, failure to even acknowledge is a deeper social slight, and one that stays through time, not something cheap and transient. But that requires a bit of sophistication.
No. Basic respect for the life of your fellow human is intrinsic. Nobody should have to earn the right to live, jackass.
When the actions they’ve committed throughout their life has led to the harm of others, there is no intrinsic respect.
People that are able to say stuff like this are exactly why we have the situation we’re having. If you can turn off your empathy for the “bad guys”, all it takes is just misidentifying the “bad guys” once, either by mistake or on purpose or by being manipulated.
Even serial killers or mass murders deserve some basic respect. You got to deal with them appropriately so they can’t be a threat anymore, but once that’s done, the respect should be the same as for anyone else.
Did you grieve when Charles Manson or Jeffery Epstein died?
No, why? I do not grieve for most of people’s deaths.
So your basic respect for them doesn’t necessitate your grieving their deaths?
Grieving one’s death, and acknowledging that they have a horrible disease that will almost certainly lead them to a slow and painful death at their advanced age, are not the same thing.
The thing about cancer, is that it doesn’t care if you’re a good guy or a bad guy. Cancer is random. Cancer is nature’s Thanos-snap. One’s actions leading up to a diagnosis are largely irrelevant.
Cancer isn’t a punishment. Though the people in this thread who seem to think it is, or perhaps want it to be, are failing a basic empathy test as spectacularly as Trump just did.
Of course not. If I grieved every person’s death, I would be constantly grieving.
Despite his many crimes, I am nearly sure Joe Biden has done more to deserve respect than you ever will.
“If Biden deserves so much respect, then why am I still an asshole?”
- Assholes
Biden is a war criminal that prepped the way for Trump to come to power.
If you feel any pitty for him, you should stop NOW.
Username checks out
Being a Democrat in name only, does not make you a decent person whatsoever.
Mr hair sniffer, stall on Ukraine, drill in the arcticson, is not a good person.
Also does not make them to blame for Trump above all the people who voted for Trump, and all the politicians actively supporting him and not reigning him in.
Whataboutism
Genocide is the mother of all crimes. Financing it nullify all the good thing you did. He also supported balkanizing Iraq.
Yeah and the other guy rapes children. What’s the point of comparison in this scenario?
You didn’t brought trump raping kids in the comment I reply to. You don’t seem like a good faith user. Israel rape children with usa diplomatic cover. Trump is also complicit with genocide so yeah i hope both trump and biden suffer
“both sides”
Both sides need to die where we dance on their graves.
Anyone that has an ounce of respect for him based on what he has done throughout his life and the harm he has caused on untold millions of people deserves no respect either.
It’s not about respect for his actions, of course they’re terrible, it’s about respect for a human being suffering. There is no real point to wish suffering on anyone, other’s suffering never helped anything except satisfy one’s vengeful fantasies/sadism. If someone is hurting others, you make them stop hurting others, but you still give them basic human respect, i.e. don’t make them suffer needlessly etc
You have empathy for Trump’s dementia?
Yes, I do have empathy for sick old humans. I wish Trump was safe in a nursing home or wherever, wouldn’t feel the need for constant validation and would feel loved. He’s quite obviously got massive internal struggles that make him do terrible things to feel less terrible himself, if he was doing better, I’m sure he wouldn’t do any of the things he’s doing and likely wouldn’t be president or similar.
Not that I think he had much in the way of empathy prior to this, but he lacks a filter of any kind which is a symptom I had to repeatedly apologize for when my grandfather’s dementia got worse.
The dude has full on dementia, no one is doing anything and he will continue to degrade both himself and the reputation of anything associated with him as this keeps going.
Funnily enough, dipshit donny might be the best publically perceivable evidence of the need for reform we will ever get.
Reforms that are needed:
I’m sure there are more, but this is just off the top of my head.
Plenty of countries have laws that fine or otherwise punish people that do not vote, afaik this doesn’t tend to lead to better functioning democracies. I think this is a thing where the carrot works better than the stick.
Automatic voter registration based on citizenship. Boom, solves a big percentage of the problem.
You’d be shocked how much a bit of minor paperwork stops a large percentage of people from doing the bare minimum.
The standard method of ranked choice voting: E gets eliminated as they have the least, everyone who voted for them goes to their next ranked choice. Repeat until one person has over 50%.
Please forgive any ignorance on my part, but would it be required that we’d know what the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and so on) preferences of those who voted for E in the first choice?
If so, and if such could be done, what if of those who voted for E on their first choice, in their second preference, half of them (i.e. half of 10% being 5%) voted for C, a third of them voted for B, and a sixth of them voted for A;
meanwhile two-thirds of those who voted in their first preference for A, half of those who voted in their first preference for B, and a third of those who voted in their first preference for C, voted for D in their 2nd preference? —i.e. (⅔ x 26%) + (½ x 25%) + (⅓ x 24%) = 16⅔% + 12½% + 8% = 36⅚%.
Here’s a brief explanation of how preferential voting works in Australia: https://www.chickennation.com/voting/
Thank you. 🙂
1st count
Bamboot got 39.
Floundra got 35.
Aggy-Waggy got 20.
Gort got 6.
But why did Bamboot get 4 of Gort’s votes while Aggy-Waggy got only 1, even though the latter got over half the number of the former?
Shouldn’t it be 3+2+1 instead of 4+1+1?
and why in the 3rd count did Floundra get 16 of Aggy-Waggy votes, while Bamboot got only 5 or less than 1/3rd?
Presumably in a run-off, it would be Bamboot versus Floundra;
while in proportional representation, the Complete Scumbag Party, Discreet Scumbag Party, the [Gort Butterson Party], and the Nice Party, in a parliament of 100 might get 39, 35, 6, and 20 seats respectively, with probably the Nice Party being in a coalition.
Even if it was 1/2 PR and 1/2 FPP, each system electing 100 candidates (hence a parliament of 200), and in the FPP vote, the Complete Scumbag Party won 51 of the FFP seats, the Discreet Scumbad Party won 38 seats (i.e. less than 75% of the former’s number of seats, or conversely the former got over less than 35% the latter’s number of seats), the Nice Party won only 8 (2/5ths of what they won in the PR count) seats, and Gort won 3 seats it would still be:
We could have 3 possible coalitions:
Because Bamboot isn’t getting Gort’s votes. Now that Gort is eliminated, all of the voters that voted Gort #1 now have their #2 vote counted as if it’s their #1 vote.
This keeps happening down the choices until someone has a majority. People that voted Floundra #1 don’t end up having their #2 vote counted because their candidate wasn’t eliminated in the end. This is why it’s not possible to
throw your vote awayhave your vote taken away - if your favourite candidate is eliminated, your vote goes to your second favourite, then your third favourite, etc until someone has the majority.Not sure what it looks like in the US, but Australian ballot slips have all the candidates and you number them 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.