For them, hate is fun (or the closest approximation thereof). It all makes sense after that.

Conservatives are really anti conservation for some strange reason.

That and The Onion could never outperform info wars in terms of absurdity… Still…

Greta Thunberg, swedish environmental activist and a favorite hate watch of conservatives.

It’s only controversial for those who are being called out on being terrible people on a moral level.

May want to give that four years or so. It’s just going to be predictable, depressing slog with no avenue to affect change between here and there

As a gay guy who’s definitely been in the room for gay jokes because they didn’t know I was gay: yes, you do. If you are only willing to call out bad behavior when you may get caught associating with it, then you aren’t actually an ally.

I can only control my own behavior. I cannot force another to change, they have to want to. The only thing I can do is draw the lines I’m willing to live within and live by them. And if not associating with bad people, even if they are family, is what I need to live in a healthy way, so be it.

The paradox of tolerance is poorly named. Tolerance is part of the social contract and one that breaks the contract is no longer protected by it. The intolerant are excusing themselves from the contract and the rest of us can and should exclude them from the society they harmed.

Someone posted a follow up elsewhere. He did in fact mean it that way.

It’s a bad faith argument and a strawman. They don’t actually think it’s reasonable for anyone to do that or think the other person is suggesting that. They are setting a person up as a hypocrite despite that obviously being an insufficient and inefficient solution to the housing crisis.

The poor do not have the ability to manipulate mass quantities of people, the rich do. Because they are rich and have the resources and connections to accomplish this. They buy politicians and manipulate to cause the conditions you describe. If they were not rich, they could not do that.

Blaming the poor for being manipulated is bad faith. And victim blaming is not an effective rallying strategy.

I appreciate that they clarified that “bad” employees aren’t always bad. I very firmly fit into the fourth category listed (avoids looking for jobs because it’s the worst) and would definitely get trapped pretty easily.

In the first case, the subject (object? I always get them confused) is delay (which is singular), and the adjective is “15 minute”.

In the second, the thing is “minutes” (plural) modified by “15”.

It does. I was looking something up and ran face first into a redacted account that once had the answer I needed. I was very conflicted about it.

Yeah, sorry about that. I did mean the one you were responding to.

Can’t tell if bot or posting to the wrong thread…

Yeah going high hasn’t exactly been working. Let’s give them a (metaphorical) kick in the teeth instead.

I hope their health insurance covers mental care.

Congrats you’ve fallen into a common stats trap!

You can’t know what the average is for the hypothetical society to which you are comparing despite that being the optimal way to compare. If you were to actually attempt this comparison, you would take two comparable societies that differ only in religious adherence, controlling for non religious cultural things (hint: you can’t separate those easily if at all). And even if you did manage that, you’ve only shown correlation, not causation. Proving the latter is much harder.

If it sounds like I’m agreeing with you, I’m not! I’m saying you cannot know one way or another. But your inane, tautological statement of “the average domestic abuse rates for society are about average” drove me to inform others of how terrible this argument is. You’re clearly a lost cause.

If you want to prove your point, don’t try stats, you’re bad at it. Go for a logical argument, though I suspect you’re bad at that too.