Doublespeak. Republicans actively work to twist the meaning of words to their base to fit their agenda, so that the other side playing by the rules and being fair looks like political cheating. That way Republicans can engage in political cheating themselves and claim self defense.

In today’s flavor, “legal standard” means “the ability to make us lose” so they want to apply their own “legal standard” to democrats.

It sounds dumb to anyone paying attention, but their voters will eat this up.

It’s not hard to clock a thesis as wrong and ignore the rest of the essay. Pretty arrogant of you to assume the problem is me.

Either way, have fun yelling at people on the internet how wrong they are about something abstract and purely theoretical.

^ did not read past the question. Guarantee it’s alarmist garbage about how we’re definitely going to die because of some imaginary numbers were living fine with.

Hey man, get off your high horse a little and I might start taking you seriously.

You really like the black and white arguments, don’t you?

Controlling a source of money doesn’t mean the only option is to print so much of it that inflation eats the whole economy.

Let me ask you this: if the US is so bad at managing the debt it owes to its people, how come we have functioned as an economy under that debt for the last several decades?

That’s the point. It’s entitlement when poor people do it. It’s “the fair share that they deserve” when they do it. If conservatives didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have standards at all.

I don’t need to show you statistics to shed light on their intent. It’s not hard to figure out what they’re doing. It’s also not hard to see that what they’re doing is damage control. The result of that would be keeping their polls from going down, not making them go up. You can’t prove a negative, so I don’t know what you want me to do.

As far as diluting the seriousness of what they’ve done, go turn on fox news. They blast Biden’s “insurrection” and impeachment “proceedings” 24/7. Do you need more proof than that?

Lastly, if you’re trying to defend your original statement, you’re preaching to the choir here. You don’t have to be an asshole about it. It’s a bit asinine to assert that they aren’t doing it with intent.

It’s a bad argument to consider not enforcing the law, but it’s not an incorrect statement. Republicans responded to the impeachment of Trump by continously trying to impeach Biden. They’re responding to the insurrection by pointing at things dems do and yelling insurrection.

It’s dumb and incorrect, but it’s pretty effective at diluting the seriousness of those particular actions to their own voter base. You could argue that that’s the point.

Not for the corporations that make money off of extorting a basic necessity from poor people! Won’t someone think of the corporations?

Translation: “I watch exclusively conservative media and consequently have no idea what’s real or not”

News used to be 60 minutes just after prime time. Now they have whole channels with news 24/7/365. Have to fill all that air time with something

There is a voice I consciously control, and there is one that I don’t. They kind of intermingle into a single monologue, but I can still hear the one I don’t control when I consciously turn off my monologue. It’s still a quiet presence almost in the back of my mind.

One way I’ve rationalized it, it’s like when you meditate and your thoughts still flow over you. You don’t actively control those thoughts, that’s kind of the point. I’m finding that those thoughts have a coherent voice for me. They speak through my monologue, but they are still there when I shut my monologue off. Under the surface, quieter, with the rest of the thoughts I don’t control.

One of the “constantly” group here. It’s a bit more like having someone to talk to all the time who is also me. I can turn it off, but it has to be a concentrated effort and as soon as I’m not concentrated on keeping it silent it comes back.

I’ve spent many years wondering at the nature of the little voice, especially after I learned that not everyone has it. It’s not controlling or contradictory, it’s a bit more like a narrator for my feelings and a driving point for logic.

I’ve come to the conclusion that what it actually is is my subconscious manifesting as a conversational partner. Kind of like an avatar that represents the part of me that isn’t the literal point of consciousness inside my head. Make of that what you will.

Don’t get me wrong, I still think in pictures and non-verbal inclinations. That doesn’t really go away either. But it’s like having a narrator alongside it that also speaks in the first person.

A true man of the people! With the right connections, you’d do quite well in 14th century Europe!

My argument was that you can’t claim the moral high ground based on legality alone. I understand that nuance exists in the context, but moral high ground does not come from whether or not it’s legal.

I see what you’re getting at, but I think ‘moral high ground’ might not be the phrase you’re looking for.

Laws and morals are explicitly different. That’s why juries exist, so that a law may be put against the morals of a situation and the morals may prevail if need be.

Breaking the law isn’t necessarily immoral. It’s just illegal. So it isn’t like someone breaking the law is seeking to take the moral high ground in the first place, nor does that mean that someone who only ever follows the law always has the moral high ground. Lawful-evil does exist.

You are a god among men

This is the natural progression of the games-as-a-service model. Any game that relies on online support of some kind just to function will eventually cease like this.

Is it stupid that a vr game about a pet relies on online support to function? Absolutely. But it is what it is. Buy more offline games.

deleted by creator

Maybe that’s the point. Unity caves immediately to the big lawyers and says “Sorry guys, we tried. Looks like all you little studios will have to pay up after all. Blame Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft”

Let’s go a step further and analyze exactly what this graph is saying:

There’s only about a 20% distribution difference in the “never” sections between Christians and atheists. So on average, 4/5 atheists would answer the exact same as Christians. All this graph says is that Christians are barely more tolerant than people who identify as atheist. Barely is the key word. If anything, this graph proves that tolerance levels don’t fluctuate that much for the individual between differing religions.

But Bible thumpers need any win they can get, so they don’t read the data for what it is, they just see one bar longer than the other and declare victory.