Because rich weirdos keep throwing him money. The average member of the public is better than the rich weirdos, but we have to keep dealing with rich weirdos shit because rich.

“I no longer [sound of US missile destroying boat off the coast of Venezuela,] feel an obligation to think purely [sound of US guns murdering survivors] of Peace”

And scumbag liberals who ought to know better but keep compromising and collaborating with the fascists because they think it will get the angry assholes on their side

If the Harris campaign cared about law enforcement violence they did a dogshit job of communicating it to anyone

Here’s to hoping at some point in the future we get candidates that won’t blow winnable races like her team did

Yeah, it’s really hard to talk up our candidate’s anti-war bonafides after throwing anti-war protesters out of our convention and having her hit the campaign trail with the Cheneys

Yeah, bigotry is basically an autoimmune disorder of the body politic

I mean, if you want to have access to all of the court opinions interpreting a law (which is arguably more important because some decisions completely change what laws actually do) you’re going to be paying Thompson Reuters or somebody else like that a monthly subscription fee for the privilege pretty much everywhere in the US. Being able to know in a really detailed and specific way what is and isn’t legal is absolutely paywalled in this country.

Now there are two “culturally homogeneous” groups

Hard to know where to begin with all of the history that you’re ignoring or just flat wrong about, but I guess one place to start would be pointing out that the US’s federation of colonies blew up in a civil war like a generation after its founding

Also basically every chapter of Habitat for Humanity has a home repair program people can apply to

That for profit company would appreciate people doing their advertising work for them for free I’m sure

Has it actually been reported anywhere that the sandwich in question came from this restaurant chain?

The meetings, known as “audencias publicas,” or public hearings in Spanish,

NYT really thinks its readers are this stupid

In this tech-savvy age, when many get their questions answered online by swiping a phone or clicking a mouse, the consulate sessions are a throwback to another era, when problems were addressed face to face.

“Cliche factory on line two, something about overtime pay?”

I think there’s also a bit of rationality behind that system, because

a) Trolls will just lie and declare an article says something it doesn’t to “win” an argument or waste people’s time making them read their bullshit article (usually something hosted on a website you don’t want to give traffic to)

b) Some people on those forums might have tightly constrained time-frames for looking at things because they’re students or they’re working in a restaurant or retail shop or some other kind of closely managed service job where they can get yelled at by a supervisor for using their phone

c) There’s a lot of content to get to on the internet

So, I think it’s kind of a dick move to get mad at other people for not reading the article, and it’s definitely a dick move to do that if you don’t take the time to quote the specific part of the article they’re claiming contradicts someone else

I came here to say both of those things about the Internet Archive, but I also hope both of those orgs get tons of donations regularly because I wouldn’t want to live in a world without them

Ever since Biden pulled funding from UNRWA most American news orgs just forgot it existed

If A

A is something you just made up

Like, if you start with the premise that they are right and you are wrong I guess it would be illogical to disagree with them, but that’s just a completely meaningless argument that doesn’t tell us anything too interesting about abstract reasoning nor does it have any substantive connection to factual reality that I can see

No, I’m not. I am starting from the premise that there is an objective reality we all have to deal with and that different individuals have different subjective preferences, and everything else logically flows from there.

If you’re looking for a utilitarian reason to behave the way I am suggesting, I would say that when you start taking tangible objective actions against everyone who doesn’t agree with your particular subjective preferences you will give people with a variety of different subjective preferences something in common (i.e. that they are being oppressed by you) and that will eventually make them work together to stop you. On a long enough timeline, tyranny is always a losing strategy.

Recognize that it is an opinion that some people may disagree with, not a fact that everyone has to accept, and act accordingly. In this case, that means not using the force of government to persecute people who disagree with your opinion.

If they didn’t keep themselves constantly busy sabotaging stuff we use we might start to wonder what we’re paying them hundreds of millions of dollars for