Then they shouldn’t try to both-sides the argument.

Nobody is defending Biden. He is just less evil than Trump, and far less of a risk to what little democracy remains. The bar is on the floor.

I might actually agree with ballot spoiling if one of the candidates wasn’t actively trying to replace democracy, and also teaching other populist extremist leaders around the world how to do the same there.

You’re simply making more bad faith arguments. The post was clearly hyperbole, but using violence is probably a reasonable response to actual fascism.

You can’t “both sides” this. Both sides are evil, but one side is an existential threat to democracy. One side has demonstrated its not going to play by the rules and is fine breaking the norms that many checks and balances relied on.
On one side some voters are extreme. On the other side, some politicians are extreme.
One side has already tried to undermine democracy and actually met with some success and no repercussions.

It’s not the same, and to call it the same is done in bad faith.

It’s literally the language used in the comment I’m responding to. I’m not the one who originally called it fascist lol
God y’all so pressed, it’s pathetic 🤣

You cannot be so media illiterate.
You think that fighting a Nazi makes you a Nazi? That’s the lesson you got from the poem? That is either a mind boggling amount of illiteracy, or, more likely, you’re a Nazi apologist.

People who are in a position to stand up to evil and fail to do so bear some responsibility for the deeds of the evil.

Never mind that this post is clearly hyperbolic, you’re clearly making bad-faith arguments in support of fascism. If you’re a fascist or not, you gotta take a good long look in the mirror, because that’s fucked up

Literally one of the most famous poems ever written is about exactly this.

You know, First They Came?

The way you unashamedly prefer fascism over violence against fascists, with your whole chest.

You realize that Trump’s supreme Court Justices are the ones who legalized exactly that, right?

I think that’s common now. It’s at least the same where I live.

But way back you could smoke anywhere in a restaurant, etc. even on planes, at one point.

Bröther

Ah yes, the four passions of the dwarf:

1. Mining
2. Brewing
3. Smithing
4. Homophobia agressive celibacy

Remember when they didn’t have smoking sections, you were allowed to smoke anywhere?

Oh shit that works surprisingly well

You’re gonna end up with an empty feed real quick 😭

I bet a group can make someone truly beautiful and creative, together

Because racism

I wasn’t taking about new fields. I was talking about resource partial updates (eg PATCH, or commonly the U in CRUD).

If you just want to update a single field on a resource with 100 fields, rather than GETting the entire resource, updating the single field, and PUTting whole thing back, just do a PATCH with the single field.

Likewise if you’re POSTing a resource that has nullable fields, but the default value isn’t null, how do you indicate that you want the default value for a given field? Do you have to first query some metadata API? That doesn’t seem ideal, when this existing pattern exists

Imagine you’re writing a CRUD API, which is pretty common.
If null attributes aren’t included in the payload, and someone does an update (typically a PATCH), how do you know which fields should be nulled out and which should be ignored?

I agree for many cases the two are semantically equivalent, but it’s common enough to not have them be equivalent that I’m surprised that it causes arguments

For many uses it is semantically the same.
But for cases where you need to know if something was intentionally set to null or was simply not set, the difference is enormous.

Ah yes the difference between “unset” and “intentionally set to null”, the bane of API devs who work in languages that don’t inherently distinguish between the two.

I love when an API takes a json payload, and one of the json fields is a string that contains json, so I have to serialize/deserialze in stages 😭