🤢🤮

what's the purpose of using ableist verbiage? the "war on drugs" and folks who consider themselves right or right-leaning use similar rhetoric to expunge people considered 'lesser'. To note this is a subgroup of individuals of conservative ideology, not all. It is important to make the distinction becauuse while I disagree all-the-same, the kinds of disagreements are different and need not be lumped together.

it's great she has 20 years of sobriety, it is inappropriate to use it as a cudgel to to wield against anyone else who she seeks to demean or otherwise treat unseriously. perhaps some were similarly unfair to her during her time of insobriety, it does not therefore mean she needs to reproduce her treatment onto others.

"hurt people, hurt people" is a descriptive account of what occurs, not a guidebook on appropriate behavior.

After reading your comment and I looked through the sources cited. Besides the initial source (i.e. linked article) being from a place I never heard, and the 'increase' in cost of oil purchased $74 → $76 (which, if I understand correctly, is a minor increase and doesn't seem to take inflation into account; without calculating or knowing my sense is that it's not meaningful) what part is 'fake news'? I'm trying to understand and I don't really get it.

The link and info stated in the linked article which links to Foreign Policy is legitimate from what I can tell. I skimmed it, and it seems completely in order.

I prefer western eurasia myself, though i respect your choice too of

Original quote may have been the following by Steven Jay Gould in his book, The Panda's Thumb:

I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops

Can you share some specific examples of what he shared and what the context was broadly?

I kinda feel like r*dditors and USians are quick to criticize their own country and government to 'get ahead' of the criticism by others and continue to hold the moral high ground. Like, in the marketplace of ideas you'll see it somewhere, not emphasized but mentioned, and then that's more or less enough.

Ah yeah, thanks, I don't actually know the details of the other pacts.

What really really gets me is when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is brought up, used to discredit and impart vileness on to the Soviet Union due to their association with Nazis (ignoring context, and other countries who made similar pacts earlier) and then the source of the awfulness, self-identifying (i.e. unambiguous) Nazis are pacified of negativity!

What? How do you use something to say something else is bad, then say that the something initially was actually not that bad! How does it not follow that the initial comparison and association at the very least be brought into question?

I agree, and as well I think it's relevant to consider what was historically considered invasive and omnipresent at that point in history is not necessarily the same as now.

I guess I'm thinking, like, are current governments similarly using the full extent of surveillance? And is it something knowable? As well, how's the investment and expansion of that surveillance been done then and now?

I wouldn't have put it as crudely, but you captured the essence of what I was thinking.

Does anyone have any examples of Linus genuinely admitting he made a mistake or was wrong in a way where he dealt with a modicum of consequence? I can't think of any, but I don't watch him very much, at least recently.