To confirm and expand on what others are saying: a general strike is not protected, and any union that endorses one will lose their recognition. How can you get that many people to risk their jobs, with no organizing union that can even legally participate?
If you can get that many people that dedicated to your cause, it would be a whole lot easier to just get them to vote in a primary.
Why? Because they're well attested by multiple sources.
That's an entirely different criterion, though. I honestly don't even know how to respond to this non-sequitur.
For the same reason you're doing it now?
You mean to say these "enemies" would have doubted that Jesus existed because they heard that there is some historical debate on the matter, and that there may not be any good evidence to support the claim, looked into it, agreed, and found it to be an interesting topic to debate on the Internet? That seems really unlikely to me.
Look at it this way: if I told you that a guy I know claims that his buddy Frank, who died ten years ago, had made certain religious and political statements, which I agree with, and you found those statements to be blasphemous and offensive, would you argue back with "well, uh, how do we know this Frank guy even existed? Huh?!" Or would you take his existence as a fairly trivial given, and argue against the actual statements he allegedly made?
It's honestly bizarre to me that anybody would imagine this "enemies" argument has any weight at all. That's not how people work.
The closest thing we have to a first-hand account of the life of Jesus is the Gospel of Mark, a book of uncertain authorship
the followers of Jesus likely would've been illiterate, and likely so would've Jesus himself, and the first gospel was likely only written after decades of "playing telephone"
I don't mean no first-hand in-depth account, that's some serious goal-post moving. If anybody even remotely describable as a historic Jesus existed, that dude made waves. He would have been a public figure, of great interest, and some contemporary would have probably at least written down something about him that would have survived to the historical record.
Evidence of belief is not evidence of existence
True, but it is usually the first step towards finding something that does exist
Is it? When has that happened? I think the first step towards finding something that exists is observing it, or observing its tangible effects that cannot be explained in other, simpler ways.
Jewish writers like Philo of Alexandria believed he existed and apparently had reason to believe he existed since him and all of his contemporaries never thought to question Jesus's existence
Again, why would they? Would you, honestly, in their place?
Is that a broadly accepted historical criteria, or just one of the many made-up ones used by biblical historians? Why would the "enemies" themselves have any reason to think that some dude a lot of people talk about isn't even real? In a world with no photography, no printing press, no telegraph? How, was there not one single first-hand account? Evidence of belief is not evidence of existence. If it were, we'd have to acknowledge the historical reality of God, Satan, Zeus, Thor, and Bigfoot. At least there are contemporary first-hand claims from people who say they saw Bigfoot.
the core ideas of religion are just about universal
Even just within Christianity, in the modern world, there are radical differences in the core ideas between sects. Across all religions, throughout history, the differences dwarf that.
It's the details and names that vary
It's not (see above), but if it were: the details count toward this as well. Just saying "meh, ignore the details" is cheating to get the answer you want.
You could describe religion as a connectedness to, and humbleness before the mystery of, the universe
How many religious people have you actually met, friend? I have known some whose views roughly fit that description, but most do not. In fact, I'd suggest that you could describe science that way. Religious people start with the belief, the box they want to put the universe in, and then insist that it must be, and attempt to adjust the facts to match their views - this is the farthest thing from humbleness before the mystery of the universe. Science tells us to put our preconceptions and expectations aside, and observe how the universe really functions - if we see facts that don't match our current understanding, we adjust our understanding.
Yes, I completely agree, so far as I can without looking up your post and comment history to confirm that you do what you are saying here you do, but taking your word for that. Good faith criticism isn't what Pan_Ziemniak seemed to be describing.
Two things can be happening. People with a legitimate moral concern, such as myself, don't actively act against that concern by helping elect a candidate who would make that concern even worse. There are ways to express our anger and sorrow about Biden's handling of this without supporting Trump.
I would prefer to say "all publicly traded corporations are effectively amoral, and capable of any imaginable evil, if it is in their interests. It's just a question of when their interests will align with an evil action."
Private ownership of capital is antisocial and antidemocratic. Owner-operated private businesses, the classic "Mom and Pop" store, are still antidemocratic, but much more distinctive in character, and may be more pro-social. Worker-owned cooperatives are significantly better altogether.
That's a lotta high fives!
Honestly, people are so bad at challenging their ideas that mostly we just cause a backlash effect. Being in their own safe little bubble might help some of them have the "are we the baddies" moment.
Saying that some projects, at some point in their lifecycle, don't need certain things, is not saying that those things have no place. Also, if one can't design a monolith that isn't bloated and tightly coupled, one definitely has no business designing microservices. Using microservices is neither necessary, nor sufficient to achieve decoupling.
Monolithic services are the ideal way to begin a project, as using basic good practices, we can build a service that does many things with minimal coordination, and as it grows and requirements change or are discovered, we can easily refactor to keep things simple. As the software matures, we find the natural service boundaries, and find that certain pieces would perform better if they were separated out and could scale independently, or act asynchronously. Since we have followed good practices, this should usually be a simple matter of removing a class or module to a new service, and replacing it with a facade, such that the rest of the monolith doesn't have to change at all.
Something something Procrustes?
Our democracy is deeply broken, but it is a democracy. If we lost it, you'd just get the batshit insane party candidate put directly in, and they could do whatever they wanted.