Actually no. People read a book and then behave the irrational ways, all of which is okay, but the problem is that their actions make our lives worse. We have a problem with their actions. We care about their actions. We don't care about the book they read.
orcrist
joined 1 year ago
Fights with neighbors, property rights, people get incredibly heated about it all. And often the only simple solution is to build a fence.
If you have no fence, but do have a racist with a quick trigger finger, this is not as unlikely as it should be. Which also shows why the Castle Doctrine is absurd, because it didn't help her here but it should not help anyone in similar circumstances, yet it often does.
We talk about it as a hive mind, but I think it is actually a problem of large numbers of users and an algorithm that needs tweaking, plus some shady mods.
You post but you're too late, or you have a legit opinion that needs a few sub comments, but it's too late.
Or you get trolled, you respond in a similar vein, and the mod bans you but not them, because the mod likes their opinion more. And I don't blame mods for being soft in general, because it is a shit job. But sometimes it's frustrating.
There's a ton of it. But it takes a long time to learn how exactly to express it well, and some people don't like it at all.
So to all the language learners, don't use sarcasm until years after after you can understand when others are using it.
Or use it, and have trouble making friends. Either way.
Yes, it did not occur to them. They simply don't care. Facts and reason can't matter to the misogynistic anti-trans crowd. Their whole approach is built on hate and bullshit, and they know it.
You make it sound like the only two possible places to look at are their eyes and their chest. Hmm.
There were multiple actions described. You're saying that you experience one of them. Or maybe you experience more than one. Or maybe we don't know, because you didn't make it clear, which might make us want to downvote you, which suggests that you often experience being downvoted. :-)
I love the irony. Is this fake? Even if it's fake, it could have happened. It would have happened. Trump wishes it had happened. Trump wouldn't know whether it actually happened, but only whether he wanted it to have happened.
I have no idea what you think "objective" means here, which I think makes your claim not particularly useful. It's not wrong, it's just based on a different set of definitions than most people appear to be using on this post.
They often are, because they often are effectively supporting similar policies. I think MLK wrote about this quite well in Letter from a Birmingham Jail. If you haven't read that, it's well worth the 20 minutes.
On a more specific note, many centrist Democrats are actually corporate Democrats, and they're supporting many laws that Republican politicians are also supporting, laws that benefit big businesses at the expense of everyone else in the world.
It's particularly entertaining because he's dead, so whatever agreement he made doesn't stop her from filing a suit. In other words, this is not a situation where someone who's currently alive had agreed to something in a click-through many years ago and is now suing.
One of the other interesting points of contract law that I think Disney will quickly lose is the fact that the agreement years ago was between two parties for something that happened years ago. They will have difficulty successfully arguing that what looked like a small scale deal that has long since ended actually had potential negative ramifications but only for one party, for the rest of their lives. If Disney were still giving him benefits up to his death, I think that could potentially be a different situation.
And as usual, depending on the level of negligence on Disney's end, it doesn't matter what he agreed to.
I think the criminal acts that Nixon got busted for put him about Reagan on this one. Of course both of them also passed laws that continue to have devastating effects.