Lurker > adjl

JigsawTDC posted...

In my experience the term "trap" is only ever used as a slur for transwomen. Did you mean it in some other way?

In Japanese media, it's a character archetype of a particularly effeminate male (usually younger) who routinely passes as female in-universe. They may or may not dress as female, and if they do, it's often because another character has dressed them as such. Bridget from Guilty Gear is an example. It's generally played for comedic effect and not necessarily as a deliberate deception on the part of the trap.

It's understandable how it's ended up as a slur for transwomen, but in that sense, it's not a question of gender identity or any such thing. If anything, using it as a slur for transwomen is an example of erroneously conflating transsexuals with transvestites.

YoukaiSlayer posted...

It is kind of interesting how useless has such a negative connotation, as if everything needs to justify it's reason to exist, rather than just not be a negative influence.

It kind of depends on context. If we're talking about whether or not a given group of people is of use to me, it's so obvious as to be pointless to say. Of course most people aren't useful to me. I will never interact with or be affected by the vast majority of people in any way. To that end, when people do actually say it, it's usually said with a certain degree of vitriol behind it (i.e. "I wish none of X people existed"), which is where the negative connotation comes from.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Vescreth posted...

You can just admit to being bi.

Honestly, labelling sexual orientation is pretty useless. Like who you like, and if anyone asks, tell them you like that person. Any further or more general description than that serves no practical purpose.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

IronBornCorps posted...

In this magical scenario do men just all quit together?

The usual implication of "useless" is that nothing would be lost if the person were to vanish altogether, so the hypothetical situation could easily entail men magically disappearing completely.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

You would defend misogyny as a man. I'm not shocked.

Calling something a joke is defending it?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

IronBornCorps posted...

Wow, you wrote all those words and said nothing of value...

I would call that useless

I'd call that illiterate. I wish you the best of luck in overcoming that handicap. I imagine it must be hard.

Jen0125 posted...

So there are women construction workers and you still think only men are construction workers or that only women are in book clubs

So misogyny is okay with you but not misandry

Pretty sure that particular post was more than a little facetious.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

IronBornCorps posted...

All the misogyny and homophobia in this topic

Not really. There's that one guy who explicitly said that the only thing a relationship with a woman could give him is sex, but he's generally just being really weird about relationships and doesn't even really want one anyway, so I think that can safely be taken with a grain of salt. I can't say I've noticed much by way of homophobia, aside from, again, TC having weird preconceptions about gender-based differences in sex drive, so again, grain of salt. Most of it's been taken over by Jen being openly misandrist and getting defensive when people called her out on it (which is really a very typical Jen thing to do), not by misogyny/homophobia.

To actually answer the topic question myself, it's hard to say because my current thoughts and feelings regarding sex and relationships are based on being straight. I don't have enough romantic/sexual interest in men to be able to say "I'd like to be gay," so I would be inclined to answer negatively, but that's based on my current orientation. If I were gay, though, it stands to reason that that attitude would change, meaning the answer would become yes. To that end, it's really a weird question that can't be answered. If the question were "If you woke up tomorrow and had magically turned gay, would you be okay with it?" then it'd be easy to answer "yes," aside from the fact that it would throw a rather large wrench into my current long-term heterosexual relationship such that I'd say "no" for purely practical reasons.

IronBornCorps posted...

Do you see why someone would think you useless?

Without knowing anything about me personally? It's not hard to know why that is, because there's only one immediate explanation for that: angry, bitter prejudice. That's literally what the word "prejudice" means. The basis for that prejudice will vary from person to person, but pretty invariably it says more about them and their failure to handle their life experiences healthily than it does about me.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

Okay and men are trash. What about it

I don't really need to tell you what about it. It's been pretty exhaustively covered why that's an absurd blanket statement completely in line with your fragile emotional state post-breakup. You can go back and read prior posts if you need help figuring it out.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Vescreth posted...

...uhhh

I mean, there are actually several different elements to biological sex. It's not just genitalia, as people tend to presume. You can get mismatches between genitalia, gonads, chromosomes, neuroanatomy, hormones... Off-hand, I can't think of any conditions that cause somebody who checks off every other box as "female" to develop a fully-functional penis (some result in "ambiguous genitalia" that may resemble a penis, but rarely a complete one), but Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome can result in a person who's almost completely indistinguishable from a biological female except that they have internal testicles and a Y chromosome (they produce the normal amount of testosterone for a male, but the body ignores it and so develops as a female). Folks with AIS pass so well as female that the condition generally isn't even diagnosed until they get well into puberty and go see a doctor to find out why they haven't had a period yet or to complain about painful sex (having no uterus results in a shallower vagina than is typical), depending on which becomes a concern first.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

And pre-op trans women still have their natural wangus, though hormone treatments tend to interfere with it working properly.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

If someone doesn't feel it applies to them then they wouldn't feel the need to defend themselves.

You seem to be conflating self-defense with pointing out that you're being unreasonable. Those are actually two different things. Of course, if you didn't feel that being called unreasonable applied to you, I guess you wouldn't feel the need to defend yourself, by your own reasoning, so...

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

I'm sorry that you feel offended enough by that that you need to defend men.

Are you surprised that people are somewhat put off by you literally calling them useless for no reason?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

xjayguyx posted...

I don't see the word black used on that sign?

It's very much implied by the obvious reference to BLM.

xjayguyx posted...

And even if it was how the F would that be racist?

Because it's overtly saying "White people are the only ones contributing to the welfare all you dirty minorities rely on." I'm really not sure how this could be made more obvious.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Its the second time Gevers has gained access to Trumps Twitter account.

The first time was in 2016, when Gevers and two others extracted and cracked Trumps password from the 2012 LinkedIn breach. The researchers took his password yourefired his catchphrase from the television show The Apprentice and found it let them into his Twitter account. Gevers reported the breach to local authorities in the Netherlands, with suggestions on how Trump could improve his password security. One of the passwords he suggested at the time was maga2020! he said. Gevers said he did not expect the password to work years later.

This just gets better and better.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Looking at the two animations side by side, I think they just forgot to code the steak disappearing after he eats it.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

blu posted...

These days even poor people can have a sea of games.

It's true. There are so many giveaways, deep discounts, and games that are just outright free to play (good ones, not the aggressively monetized cash grabs that dominate most of the F2P market) that it's really not that expensive to amass a sizable backlog, especially when you also throw in games that are more normally priced but offer thousands of hours of gameplay (e.g. Minecraft). You've still got the relatively high cost of entry of a console or gaming-capable PC, which can be a difficult hurdle to overcome for poor people, but it's far from insurmountable (especially looking at older second-hand consoles) and is still an incredibly efficient use of entertainment dollars.

Black_Crusher posted...

It's weird but I don't really drink and I don't do drugs. I wonder if buying video games that you'll never play qualifies as some sort of addiction? Serious question, now. We may not be all that bad however take a gander at Steam and you'll routinely see tons of people who'll buy stuff and never even install the thing. That's next level!

I'd say it's a variant of hoarding disorder, at some level. It's not as destructive, since digital libraries are hypothetically infinite (and even physical libraries can get very large before taking up enough space to affect living conditions), but it's the same basic compulsion of "I should take advantage of this good deal and I'll probably play it eventually" driving people to purchase stuff that will ultimately be useless.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zareth posted...

This. It's one thing to not feel empathy for someone dying of cancer, it's another to not feel empathy for someone dying of cancer that was caused directly from their own actions.

Particularly when they never regretted or repented for those actions, and in fact made active efforts to encourage others to act similarly. I'll happily sympathize with somebody who recognized their mistake and tried to rectify it even though it ultimately killed them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

streamofthesky posted...

It's fraud.

Cracking down on it may technically fall under the umbrella of "censorship", but it's really not what people think about and protest over when they make a stand against censorship.

You know, aside from the disingenuous politically extremist trolls just trying to stir up shit.

I kind of agree w/ Revelation, on not wanting to call it censorship. It's to censorship what picking up a penny dropped on the sidewalk is to theft.

That's the point. It's one of many examples of things that qualify as censorship that are in fact quite reasonable. The existence of such examples is why blanket statements like "censorship is always bad" are silly. There are many bad examples of censorship, absolutely, but those can and should be objected to on an individual basis based on their specific characteristics, rather than employing the lazy, meaningless "it's censorship so it's bad" argument.

Revelation34 posted...

Wat.

Any time you choose not to say something, you're engaging in self-censorship. Any time you choose to say anything, you're choosing not to say every other word in your vocabulary. Therefore, every time you choose to say anything, you're self-censoring the rest of your vocabulary.

Reductio ad absurdum, y'all.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Usually attention and/or compulsive lying. Sometimes there's a more immediate practical motivation, like trying to get out of trouble for missing curfew or something like that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Judgmenl posted...

How many Presidents of the United States have said the word woke before?

Probably around 44. Possibly fewer, since I'm not sure if the phrase "I woke up" was as prevalent in 18th-century vernacular as in 20th/21st, but I'd be surprised if the number is less than 40.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

Censorship is never reasonable.

Harassment and dangerous misinformation are two very obvious instances where it is, even without getting into pedantry like pointing out that you censored the vast majority of your vocabulary in making that post.

Revelation34 posted...

This isn't a case of censorship. It's people impersonating somebody else.

They're censoring the act of impersonation.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Anal [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker]

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Then the Thin Blue Line/Blue Lives Matter morale patches should be verboten as well.

Potentially, depending on the exact wording of the regulations in question. The argument can be made that those aren't really political so much as they are a morale booster and/or a reminder to people to respect that it's a difficult job, but the success of that argument will vary depending on how the department's policy is worded. With any such policy, you're also going to get superiors making exceptions for certain things, and I could see that being one of them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Veedrock- posted...

Guy I dislike gets sick = Fair
Guy I like gets sick = Tragedy

Classy.

Frankly, we'd all be better off if everyone that downplays the dangers of second-hand smoke were to die. This is just one small step toward that little slice of utopia, and the fact that it's lung cancer is just delightfully fitting.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ClarkDuke posted...

it's actually something icoyar does regularly, ok?

And Icoyar has very little understanding of how to interact effectively with other humans. I'm not sure that's really a good standard to use.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Clench281 posted...

Not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. And not everyone who gets lung cancer has a history of smoking. But he was a smoker in his earlier days and continued to smoke cigars after "quitting" smoking. He was also a vehement denier of negative health outcomes from secondhand smoke.

And nothing of value was lost.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Most would agree that you are free to spend your money on whatever you want. You just shouldn't expect to generate any good will by spending it on silly and/or selfish things.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Sahuagin posted...

my point was that your question is misleadingly narrow. "(don't you think) this one comment is obviously fake so of course twitter should censor it" jumps right over the more important questions and isn't as straightforward as it seems.

you're saying here that you can make decisions at the small scale before making decisions at the large scale, when the opposite is true.

what even are your grounds for deleting the comments?

Twitter (and Facebook and the like) have generally committed to combating the spread of misinformation and other such "news" on their platforms. That's been a development over the last few years, as the investigation into Russia's meddling in the election has revealed the extent to which social media is being used to manipulate American voters, and it's become especially important in the last year as misinformation regarding Covid has become a serious threat to public safety. In general, I think people are pretty okay with that, since having some degree of fact checking filtering their feeds is a much more convenient way to avoid misinformation than to fact check everything themselves (which takes substantial time and effort) or avoid social media altogether (which deprives them of the fun parts), and it's not unreasonable to expect social media platforms to take some responsibility for the ways in which they are used.

Obviously, that has the potential to be abused. The fundamental process of "fact checking" incorporates many subjective judgements, and there are countless opportunities to injectt bias in carrying it out. I'm okay with the basic idea, but that doesn't mean that individual instances of censorship aren't above scrutiny, and I'm all in favour of holding them accountable for any more questionable ones. The NYT article talked about earlier is a good example of that: from what I was reading there, the only justifiable reason for censoring it was the presence of unredacted personal contact information in some of the pictures. That's a decent reason, but I can't help but feel like that was a matter of finding a convenient excuse for politically motivated censorship, and it's good to see that they're being held accountable for it (and that attention is being drawn to the article through not-Twitter to compensate for Twitter's censorship). In the case of these fake accounts, though, I don't think there's much to object to. Everything they posted - including their mere existence - was a politically motivated lie, and I have no qualms whatsoever about shutting down the sort of person who would steal a dead veteran's identity for political gain.

Of course, there's also the point to consider that, as a privately owned platform, Twitter can censor literally anything they want. The question is not whether or not they're allowed to, it's whether or not it's reasonable to be angry at them for it, and the answer to that question depends on the circumstances of a specific example.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

He wasn't carrying a sign.

The mask is pretty much just a campaign sign printed on fabric. The difference between it and a traditional sign is entirely academic.

Zeus posted...

>Can't wear political attire while voting
>Reasonable

That's a stupid standard.

Allow it, and polling stations become mini-rallies as campaigns throw last-minute money around to pack them full of people with campaign signs/clothing, which just isn't practical and makes voter intimidation that much easier to pull off (a more chaotic situation, people who would be inclined to intimidate feel supported by having people overtly on their side, etc.). Really, it's not like its a particularly obscure rule, and people have had the last year to wear their campaign clothes. They'll survive not wearing them for this one day for the sake of keeping polling stations more civilized.

Zeus posted...

The topic says it was while he was voting, which is why it's stupid. If he was just out on the job, maybe there'd be an argument, but it's unreasonable to ask somebody to change their clothing before they go to vote.

If you're in your work uniform, you're representing your employer, and anything you do reflects on them. I wouldn't expect him to go home and change before voting, but I do think it's reasonable for him to not be allowed to engage in any political activism while in uniform, especially where police departments are supposed to be politically impartial.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

zebatov posted...

If someone is that skilled that they may think about applying for a job without a degree, I would ask them why they would want to work for someone else and not themselves.

The obvious answer is that they aren't interested in/good at running their own business, which rarely has any bearing on their ability to perform at the job in question.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Wanded posted...

alright, i'll give a handicapped bid then, if trump wins you pay 88$, if biden wins i'll pay 100$

You're weirdly desperate to gamble on this. I think you might have a problem.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I don't really see how it could be construed as voter intimidation, but it is in clear violation of multiple, pretty reasonable rules and therefore should result in disciplinary action.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheWorstPoster posted...

I have a hard time believing that Biden would win all because of his rallies look like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyC_r_MpG8o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qynk_v11NLA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUcbEJCjxuY

Hell, contrast both Trump and Biden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02EhVqp8jQM

I know you don't get out much, but I'm amazed that even you are this oblivious to the world around you.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

blu posted...

So is it standard for small coffee shops to close that early? I get the impression from your post that it is. The last two places I lived all the ones I knew of pretty much stayed open to 10 or later and were just local businesses. Maybe Im just now experiencing the norm or had some bias of going to the ones I knew people went to which happened to be established hang out spots.

I'm guessing it varies by where you are based on local cafe-going culture. Bakery cafes or other such places that have plenty of non-coffee things on the menu are also generally going to have more incentive to stay open later, since picking up some bread or dessert items on the way home from work is a pretty common thing for people to do even if they don't want coffee.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Clench281 posted...

People get their coffee on the way to work or during a work break. There's probably not enough business to warrant staying open past the afternoon.

This is pretty much the reason. Evening coffee isn't really a thing for many people, and smaller coffee shops generally won't make enough from the handful of people that will stop in to justify paying staff for the extra 8 hours you're proposing. Starbucks and the like have done enough to diversify their menus and establish an identity of being a hangout spot that they can get away with it, but that's a tall order for a small business.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Polls are all well and good, but they're still not conclusive and everyone needs to get out and vote, rather than assuming they don't need to because of how the polls look.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

Yes, it has, like, character development and emotions in it

One of my friends was particularly upset by Roland's death, so playing with him as he went through Dragon Keep for the first time was quite the experience. It really was quite masterfully done, especially considering how utterly absurd and not serious at all most of it (and the game) was.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

You think vaccines cause autism which is ridiculous on its own

Eh, I'll happily concede that there was reason to entertain the possibility and study a potential link. Diagnosis of autism tends to happen within a year or two of the MMR vaccine, diagnosis rates have been increasing in loose correlation with vaccination rates... It was a question worth asking. It's only considered ridiculous now because only one study has been able to find such a link in over 20 years of trying to replicate its results, and that study was fraudulently published for financial gain.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

zebatov posted...

How many of those lives have been super important outside of surviving and paying taxes? How many of the would-be deaths turned into criminals? Carbon footprint?

You're really so bent on sticking to "vaccines are bad" that you're going to try "all those people they've saved probably should have died" as an argument? For real?

zebatov posted...

Again, I need food to survive. I dont need vaccines.

Fortunately, I listed a bunch of other things there that also aren't necessary for survival, as well as explaining the broader reasoning in a manner that clearly outlines how it can apply to everything you do, regardless of how necessary it is. If you need it spelled out for you: You trust countless things every day that you do not and cannot have a comprehensive understanding of, even when that's not a risk you have to take in order to survive.

Further examples? You did not build the device you are currently using to browse and post here (and when I say "build," I mean from scratch, personally mining and processing all of the materials and creating the components yourself, not just slapping parts into a box), yet you still use it despite being able to survive without it. You did not personally direct, film, and edit every TV show, movie, or youtube video you watch to ensure there are no harmful subliminal messages in them, yet you continue to watch video content despite being able to survive without it. And I'm sure you could find plenty more if you take a closer look at your life than I'm able to.

Quite simply, you can't live your life being that paranoid. It's simply not possible to hold everything you experience to that kind of scrutiny. Instead, you use available evidence to make reasonable risk assessments and act accordingly as you go on with your life. The vast majority of sound-looking buildings don't spontaneously collapse, so you trust that any sound-looking building you walk into probably won't kill you. The vast majority of gardening and kitchen tools do not contain toxic metals that will leech into your food (... anymore >.>), so you trust that you can buy a knife off the shelf instead of forging your own from scratch. And the vast majority of vaccines do not harm the people receiving them, so you can trust that you'll be safer for having been vaccinated than you would otherwise.

zebatov posted...

What you just said is the exact argument Id use for pro-vaxxers.

Yes. That is the point. If you use exactly the same argument for literally anything else (necessary to life or not), it very obviously sounds ridiculous. The reasonable conclusion to draw from that is that it's also ridiculous to use for vaccines. You can make reasonable risk assessments by looking at statistical evidence. You don't need to invoke this "unless you personally run a comprehensive battery of spectroscopic tests to know exactly what's in it, you can't trust it" nonsense. That's ridiculous and paranoid, and at that point you're just desperate to validate your preexisting position because somehow that's preferable to letting reasonable data tell you your position is wrong.

zebatov posted...

The presumably part is where youre wrong, obviously, because youre presuming, and youre wrong.

I'm presuming for the sake of giving your doctor the benefit of the doubt. There are exactly two explanations for a doctor telling his patient that their ASD might have been caused by the vaccines they received:

• It's 1998/early 1999 and the doctor in question works hard to keep abreast of current medical research. Wakefield's study has recently been published and received enough attention for the doctor to be aware of it, but the study has not yet been refuted, so the doctor considers it a plausible explanation for the diagnosis
• It's any other time and the doctor in question ignores current medical research and gets most of their understanding of medicine from blogs and online videos that conform to their preexisting biases

If you were not diagnosed in 98/99 (heck, we'll lump 2000 in there to give a bit more breathing room), then your doctor suggesting that your vaccine may have caused you to develop Asperger's means your doctor is not a competent doctor. Those are the only two possibilities, aside from the third possibility that your doctor didn't actually say that and your parents just told you that lie because it was easier to accept than being told that there was no explanation (which is also plausible, and indicates nothing about your doctor's competence).

I presumed competence because it seemed like the polite thing to do. If you're telling me that my presumption is incorrect, then you're telling me that your doctor is incompetent (or that your parents lied). There are no other possibilities.

zebatov posted...

Reasoning is I got the shot and then I got this.

That's a correlation. If I take a drink of water and then need to poop five minutes later, that does not mean that drinking water causes me to poop. A correlation can be the basis for suspecting a causal link, but it does not in any way indicate one, and inferring causality involves far more rigorous study and reasoning than merely noticing a sequence of events like that. That's not reasoning, that's mindlessly jumping to conclusions.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Gaige is probably the easiest for general play, Salv is the strongest for endgame stuff (it's very easy to build him to be virtually invincible while also slagging everything). Zero's quite tricky unless you're good at sniping (building him effectively for melee requires some pretty specialized gear). Maya's very strong and pretty intuitive to use (though I really haven't played enough as her), I've never touched Axton, and I really want to get more into Krieg but I was burned out on the game by the time I got around to him so I can't really comment on him except that his personal commentaries are some of the most entertaining.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

wolfy42 posted...

Looking forward to 2027 which is less than a month away now.

On my first pass, I thought this was a joke about how distorted everyone's sense of time is in 2020. I figured it out eventually >.>

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

The bet one has the most obvious, simple financial benefits, but I'd probably go with teleportation. Even without thinking big, that's just such a massive quality-of-life improvement over having to take time to travel anywhere, and I could very easily make enough money with it to never want for anything.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

There's fighting in the streets and cities are on fire. How is there not already a civil war going on?

I think you grossly underestimate how terrible actual war is.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

streamofthesky posted...

I remember back when Plan B needed a doctor visit and prescription b/c the Christian Taliban had fought to keep it that way. My now-wife and I were in college and had a scare (rip in condom) and had to go see a doc and it was like a damn interview, asking about our lives and how we weren't ready for a kid yet, being in college and all. In the end, she said she'd write the prescription, because "we seemed like nice people". Which immediately made me wonder "what if we didn't garner her personal approval?" and how f***ed up that was.

Yep. It's really quite sickening how so many "pro-life" people just exploit the baby's life to make a more credible emotional appeal than their actual position of "we just want to punish dirty sex-having women." There are reams of evidence out there demonstrating that comprehensive sex ed and subsidized birth control do far more to reduce unplanned pregnancy rates (and, by extension, abortions) than strict anti-abortion laws do, but you never seem to see pro-lifers advocating for such ideas. Can't imagine why that is.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

streamofthesky posted...

Instead, here they fervently push to force women to carry a pregnancy to term in order to punish them for being promiscuous.

With "promiscuous" being defined roughly as "having sex for any reason except to make babies," regardless of their relationship status or whether or not the amount of sex they're having could even remotely qualify as "promiscuous" under any other definition.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SunWuKung420 posted...

This won't help businesses. Many people are still fearful of public spaces especially being indoors. Making people pay extra to go out will likely slow down business. Those restaurants that choose to make other adjustments (reduced menu, reduced staff, minute rising of prices, etc.) without adding this surcharge, will fair better moving forward instead of just charging $20 to even sit.

It may encourage people to get takeout instead of eating in, which reduces the associated costs (cleaning being the big one that's been inflated by all of this). That is going to result in restaurants cutting down on front-of-house staff, but it'll help the business stay afloat.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

That eye also looks kinda weird. Like the tear duct is too wide and it's oddly shaded on the right side. For being literally the only thing they've publicly accomplished, you'd think they'd put some effort into making it look less sloppy.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheWorstPoster posted...

they attempted to impeach him for something his opponent's son did

See, this is why the GOP was able to get away with voting not to remove him from office despite his unambiguous guilt. This is the level of understanding his base has of the situation.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

Its kind of impressive how long that article is considering the whole thing is basically just

this thing is being made maybe, we dunno

Yeah, it's not exactly the most substantial article.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

MrMelodramatic posted...

The harder part will be making chocolate, I think, but even that is just melt-mix-freeze.

If you're not tempering it (presuming you're using actual chocolate and not compound chocolate that doesn't require tempering), you're going to end up with a subpar product. Most notably, you'll likely see some pale blotches appearing on the surface fairly soon after it's cooled. Don't worry about those, they're completely harmless (it's called "blooming," and is a consequence of fat and sugar crystals migrating to the surface because it's un-/poorly tempered) and the chocolate's still totally edible, it just won't be quite as nice as a commercial chocolate bar.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

tbh, the way that it's couched on the bill will make it look like a tax so I imagine at least some consumers will assume it's a government thing.

That's basically how "gratuity" and "service charge/fee" get tacked on, for places that automatically add that, and I don't believe anyone assumes those are extra taxes. Those concepts are better established, though, which I imagine makes a fair difference in how acceptable they are.

Really, the best option is probably just to have a few signs up asking people to tip more generously to help them recover, possibly indicating that half (or whatever) of all tips received will be going toward recovery efforts. That won't have the same potential for extra revenue, but it'll probably actually attract extra business by explicitly telling people that their favourite restaurant is in serious danger of going out of business.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.