HelixDab2

Is spastic no longer an acceptable word? The only context I have for it is involuntary motion, from spasm. (Or the great Skinny Puppy song, Spasmolytic.)

Sounds to me like they want all of the benefits of being in a society, while shouldering none of the costs. In that respect, they're perfect Libertarians.

I think that it's irrelevant to whether or not it's a real word. All words are made-up words. There wasn't any term for cis-gender that had any kind of popularity until about 20 years ago, simply because no one thought of the concept in that way; you were either normal/typical, or you were transsexual (transgender is the preferred term now, since people are also more likely to understand gender in terms of social construction rather than genitals or chromosomes).

Similarly, you can say that carnist is the opposite of vegan; a carnist is someone that is not vegan. A person that is cisgendered is not transgendered. A person that is heterosexual is not homosexual.

Do I find what vegans imply with the term to be insulting? Yes. But that doesn't make it any less real.

Why would I call the cops? To report that I killed someone that tried to rob me? Naw man, I know plenty of places to dump a body where it's not gonna be found for years, if ever. Welcome to Appalachia.

Oh, you think that people that think ACAB aren't armed...?

Polls can be a good indicator, since not everyone will vote. But yes, go vote. If you vote for Harris, get out there on Tuesday, 5 November and show your support! If you vote for Trump, get out there on Wednesday, 6 November and show your support! (Don't get your days mixed up! The liberal media doesn't want you to remember that your Trump vote only counts if it's on Wednesday!)

Next time they shoot another innocent person and murder them at the wrong address is the person who’s address they were supposed to be at going to be held responsible

If you want to take that to an illogical extreme, and say that any connection, regardless of how tenuous, should be charged, then sure. Except that's not the way that the laws are written.

since you interacted with a criminal organization your hands have blood on them too?

This is a common argument in the general public and politically. If you buy cocaine, you're directly supporting the cartel activities in Colombia. You can't buy ethically-sourced cocaine. If you buy heroin, you were supporting insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan (or, were; now that the Taliban has political control of Afghanistan, they've sharply cut poppy cultivation, much to the detriment of the farmers).

If I'm responsible for, or significantly involved in planning the robbery, but I'm not part of the execution of the robbery, then of course I should be charged. That's not significantly different from hiring a hitman to commit a murder for me.

That's what criminal conspiracy charges are all about.

I struggle to understand how someone can acknowledge the cruelty of factory farming and turn around and eat a burger,

Because cruelty is inherent to food production in most places in the west, to one degree or another. Even for non-factory farmed meat, there's going to be some cruelty at the very end of an animal's life, since event he most compassionate slaughter is still slaughter. But even going past that, to plant-based foods. in the US at least we rely on labor abuses in order to have groceries that are affordable. The migrants that pick oranges in Florida (or, picked; DeSantis is trying to eliminate undocumented immigrants, and the result is that farmers are having a very hard time finding labor) work in terrible conditions for horrible pay, conditions that no person protected by labor laws would ever accept. But we, as a society, are aware of this, and accept that this cruelty is necessary for us, because we won't--or can't--pay for produce that comes from co-op farms.

We--all of us--pick and choose where we put our energy.

It's a fairly common tactic of evangelical religious groups to send young people out to proselytize; they say that they're called to spread the religion to the whole world, and that the proselytizing is to save people by converting them. The tactics that the young people are taught are often antagonistic. An extreme example is the Westboro Baptist Church, but all evangelical religions use similar tactics. Unsurprisingly, very few people convert. The true purpose of antagonistic proselytizing is to reinforce in/out group status; the youth are rejected by outside people, while being praised by people within their own group. That reinforces their feelings of comfort and safety within their group, and makes it more difficult for them to leave. Leaving the safety of the group means that they're severing their most intimate social connections, and that cost is too high for most people.

This was my experience as a Mormon; this has been the experience of many Mormons, and of all people that have left high-demand evangelical religions.

IF they really cared about getting more people to join their religion, they would be opening and welcoming to people, even people that were antagonistic to them. When you think about it from a PR standpoint, it should be clear that acting antagonistically towards people that simply don't believe the same things--not people that are being antagonistic themselves--works counter to the purpose of persuasion.

It's a real word, even if it's a relative neologism, so I'm not sure why you have the scare quotes around it. In fact, the term has been in use for over t20 years, so, IDK man, maybe accept it. Implying that it's not a real word because you don't like it--versus because it's used as a slur to other people--kinda feels like Musk's complaints about cisgender.

Going private is an extreme solution with high likelihood of it just dying as a result.

Okay, and...?

That doesn't negate the point: if they don't want anyone else that isn't already part of their group interacting with their instance or posts, why be federated, and why leave things public?

Because it doesn't have to be. They're two different thoughts. Hence the paragraph break. Moreover, I note in my first goddamn sentence that Silver is good at odds regardless of who he works for. That clearly implies acknowledgement that Silver is working for an organization funded by Thiel, rather than for an ABC affiliate.