Unbecredible

Chair Khan? Am I the only one that things it's a bad look to have that evil tiger from The Jungle Book leading the FTC?

They're really out here scrawling the Dragon's Fang on people's doors...

This is my question as well for a lot of issues and I think part of the answer must be that the democratic party as a whole just isn't that "left" when the rubber meets the road.

Another thing is that the places where democrats have overwhelming political majority is major cities more often than states. So you might get BLUE cities existing in just kinda blue states which exist in a country that is only half blue on a good day. The city, where the most political will to implement very left policies exists, is constrained in its actions by state and federal law and state and federal budgeting constraints which the city can't effect directly.

I hadn't realized this was a .ru domain....

You're probably right about this specific dude's motivations for posing the question, but I think I am right that this type of thought is entirely normal and even common to have. You are right about the dismissiveness too, sorry.

What do you think about the parallel I was trying to draw between the video I mentioned and this guy's question about paying for rape? I thought the reason that someone's interest could be caught by the video is similar in nature to the reasons someone might wonder "is it okay to pay to hurt someone"? And that train of thought leads naturally enough to "Well how much harm is permissible for what amount of money?" which leads naturally enough to imagining specific circumstances.

And those trains of thought are similar to the thought behind people's ancient musings about other tricky question of morality like the trolley problem. It's not peak philosophy it's just ordinary human thought. You shouldn't be so afraid or repulsed by it or whatever.

what is this...from? Your mind?

Don't you think taking that hard-line stance kind of corners you into taking some nonsensical positions?

For example a physical power imbalance will always exist between two men of different sizes. Because the imbalance is there, you have to answer with a hard no when someone asks: "is it possible for two men of different sizes to consent to sex with one another?" But if someone asks "is it okay for two guys of different sizes to have sex?" you would presumably say yes.

Now you have been forced to say it is okay for sex to happen despite the impossibility of any consent having being given.

It can't exist? As an exaggeration, is there no way for a woman to meaningfully consent to an offer from her male boss to swap packed lunches? After all, he might take offense and pass her over for the promotion if she declines.

And if consent is possible in that scenario, what makes it immediately impossible in the scenario where sex or romance is involved?

It seems obvious that consent has to exist on some kind of spectrum like almost everything else. But it's spoken about and thought about in a very binary way. That seems problematic given how big a topic consent is lately.

I think it must be fairly normal to wonder things like this. Once I saw a video of a man standing on a busy sidewalk offering passersby the opportunity to shoot a staple gun into his bare chest for a dollar or so. It was immediately fascinating. The proposition was so direct: pay money to inflict pain. And people were taking him up on it!

Interesting, sort of in the same way that this Twitter guy's question is interesting. The same way other moral thought experiments like "the trolley problem" are interesting.

Weird just means unusual (with slight negative connotations already) . So to use "weird" as an unqualified insult is to say that being unusual is a negative thing in itself. Which echoes the sentiment behind things like xenophobia and such. That's why people are uncomfortable with this line of political attack, imo.

To say "there's good weird and bad weird" doesn't say much more than that there are ways of being unusual that you view positively and those that you view negatively. But that's obvious and doesn't resolve the issue I mentioned before.

shutdown -r now VS shutdown now

The -r muscle memory is real.