Well this is what I mean. Either what he did is not good or if it is, he didn’t have any meaningful part in it.

Very few things are all good or all bad but I see this as a net-positive thing, or for the very least, step in the right direction.

Abraham accords

I’m an idiot and my opinions are worthless. No disagreement there.

…but I still feel confident in saying that there’s literally nothing Trump could do that would make the haters give him credit for.

Half of Lemmy would stop drinking water tomorrow if Trump said it’s his pick for quenching thirst.

I have a good friend like this. He says quite extreme things like that from time to time. I don’t attack him for it. Instead we talk about it. I ask him questions, share my view on the matter etc. more often than not he then walks back what he said and openly admits that he shouldn’t generalize and understands that the few bad apples he has had to deal with don’t represent the majority.

People change. I did too. I used to say horrible things about gay people myself too when I was younger. Then I grew up and realized I’d actually like to have some of that dick too.

Your friend on the other hand probably only holds down to those beliefs even stronger now because of how you reacted. These are the people who vote for Trump to “screw with the libs”

If you can figure out what it contains by looking at it it’s probably good to eat. Basically the less it has been processed, the healthier it is. In general, nothing is inherently bad for you. Dose makes the poison. Things can be bad in excess.

surely they would know they are (edit: seen as) the bad guys?

This is a popular view only on left-wing social media. The vast majority of people just see them as wealthy individuals, without thinking of them as particularly bad. If I didn’t visit Lemmy, I wouldn’t even know how many people dislike them. Everywhere else, I mostly see people looking up to them. Criticism does exist, of course, but it’s usually focused on specific traits - like Elon’s Twitter addiction - rather than condemning them as a whole.

To answer your question, Elon Musk plays a lot of Diablo IV and is actually quite good at it. He claims to be in the global top 20, though that’s debatable and hard to verify. However, he is ranked in the top 20 on the leaderboard at helltides.com.

Lucky? I thought the 12 week limit and need for 2 doctor statements after that was outrageous.

I mean the pro-life stance is clear in the sense that they generally don’t accept abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger. So when someone is ‘pro-life,’ I know what that means. However, when someone says they’re ‘pro-choice,’ I don’t always know what they mean. I’ve assumed most people draw the line somewhere around three months, after which you’d need a medical reason and a doctor’s statement to proceed. But based on the replies I’ve gotten here, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Many seem to suggest that no such lines should be drawn at all and even go as far as calling the baby a parasite, which seems a bit crazy to me to put it lightly.

I know such lines are arbitrary and there’s no practical difference between one day and another but what seems obvious to me is that a total ban and allowing it at 8 months for any other that a serious medical reason are both equally extreme stances and the ‘truth’ is there somewhere in between.

I don’t know what hellhole you live in, but where I’m from, doctors don’t arbitrarily deny abortions to someone whose life is in danger. The reason you need a second opinion is because you had three months to decide whether you want to keep it or not. If it’s been more than that, the child is already so far developed that you’ll need a medical reason to abort it, and at that point, ‘I changed my mind’ is no longer a good enough reason to end the life of a living, feeling being. Also, after that point you generally also need surgery to remove the dead fetus.

How do you know you’re going to die due to pregnancy without visiting a doctor? You’re not going there to prove anything. You’re going there for a diagnosis. Doctor is the medical expert, not the mother.

I don’t think that drawing a line means it wouldn’t be allowed under any circumstances after that. Before the line, it would be at the mother’s discretion, and after passing the line, you’d need a statement from one or two doctors and a valid medical reason for it.

Where I live abortion is legal untill 12 weeks and after that you need a medical reason for it and a statement from 2 doctors. What’s wrong with this?

You are being forced to feed a parasitic being in your body, a being that destroys your body in the process.

Okay, let’s take this reasoning even further then. Why can’t this same logic be used to a 3 year old?

Death penalty is justice. Abortion is cruel & horrifying.

See? That’s how convincing your reasoning is. Luckily the other people responding are atleast addressing the question.

The thing I’ve yet to figure out about the abortion debate, and what likely gets me labeled as a right-wing bigot for even daring to ask, is where ‘pro-choice’ people draw the line. The ‘pro-life’ view is clear: life starts at conception. However, I don’t know where the left draws the line, and in my mind, refusing to do so seems to suggest it would be fine even a day before birth, which seems like an equally extreme position.