@[email protected] to Data Is [email protected] • 1 year agoNew gender gaplemmy.mlimagemessage-square378fedilinkarrow-up1619arrow-down1108
arrow-up1511arrow-down1imageNew gender gaplemmy.ml@[email protected] to Data Is [email protected] • 1 year agomessage-square378fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish-1•1 year agoSo we should just let ‘minorities’ suffer? The term appeasement comes to mind, as I don’t know what else you could be advocating here.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish5•1 year agoWhy not both? Benefit to minorities and benefit to majorities. This isn’t a zero sum game.
minus-squareGlitchingtonlink-4•edit-21 year agoLet me get this straight, if you have food to survive, and someone else who doesn’t have food wants some food, not even your food, just some food, you need more food before they get any at all?
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish4•1 year agoDid … did you even read my post? What is going on? Let me re-write it using your analogy. Why not both? Food for minorities and food for majorities. This isn’t a zero sum game.
minus-squareGlitchingtonlink2•1 year agoEveryone should have food, my point is, the majority shouldn’t get extra food just because the minority are getting enough food now.
So we should just let ‘minorities’ suffer? The term appeasement comes to mind, as I don’t know what else you could be advocating here.
Why not both? Benefit to minorities and benefit to majorities.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
Let me get this straight, if you have food to survive, and someone else who doesn’t have food wants some food, not even your food, just some food, you need more food before they get any at all?
Did … did you even read my post? What is going on?
Let me re-write it using your analogy.
Everyone should have food, my point is, the majority shouldn’t get extra food just because the minority are getting enough food now.