No. The instance being killed by the taliban is the opposite of that is happening here.

The taliban has done nothing, in this case. The admins of the instance have chosen not to keep the instance due to not wanting to fund the taliban in anyway.

This phrasing fucks up which way the action flows, which is important for a headline to get right to remain accurate to the story. Does that make sense?

Ok, this may be wrong history but I could have sworn I saw some article a few years ago explaining that this marriage happened because it was the middle of the great depression and her parents couldn't afford to feed her or something like that.

Makes it worse, imo.

That said, was he a pedo? If sex happened then obviously yes, but I thought this marriage was a charity case more so than a "indulge a pedo who's interested in our daughter during the depression" situation...

I'm gonna have to go find that article at some point...

Edit: welp, I went looking for it, couldn't find it, so everything above this line may be bullshit, but based on the age she had her first child at, yeah I'd say that obviously counts as some pedo shit

Who the fuck are you to speak for me and who I support?

Speak for yourself, by yourself, dogmatic atheist.

You're free to not like it, and free to voice your opinion but you do not speak for atheists. Go ahead and keep your fears about granting any religion legitimacy through any twisty means, but don't be dogmatic about it and start telling other people what they do and do not support. You will be wrong every time, and deserving of every ridicule you get.

And they have the public so disenfranchised that the public'll just go "fucking politicians" and move on with their lives instead of grabbing the torch and pitchforks and showing these assholes what accountability for politicians used to look like in the old days. Perhaps show them why we don't play by those rules anymore and why they shouldn't inspire the public to continue playing by those old rules.

Note: I am euphemistically edging towards tar and feathering more so than anything else. Anything nonlethal but severe in nature and consequence, that sort of thing.

Christ Almighty this is the dystopian software future that my college computer science ethics professor was working so hard to delay.

I would advise fighting for equity to mean "distribution of resources to enable equal opportunity" rather than "capitalism with a diversity coating"

If you allow people to use the term incorrectly, you're allowing the term to grow/evolve into a meaning that harms the ability to accurately convey the concept you're trying to describe.

So with all that said, to respond to your question: Perhaps you've seen it used that way. That is not what equity means though.

As one who was raised Evangelical Christian for the majority of my childhood by a devout and Republican parent, I'm pretty sure it's just a death cult.

They live their whole lives only preparing to die.

They forsake and forego a lot of random stuff in favor of rewards after death.

And if they think it'll get them any bonus, they don't care if they take everyone else with them, hence the Republican Evangelical politicians generally trying to supply the ingredients for the battle of Armageddon to happen.

Tldr; I think it's greed typical of those who would fully knowledgeably choose to be a Republican combined with the beliefs of an Evangelical trying to cash in on rewards asap, in the way a Republican typically does.

I typically don't know what I'm doing, so my favorite binding is :q!

Hmm can someone tell me if I'm just in a "republicans are hysteric about it so it must not be that bad" mindset?

It's obviously spyware to some degree, but this really seems more like a case of red-scare. I can't put my finger on exactly why, though. Makes me think I might just be reacting to their reaction.

I guess, what exactly are they afraid that China is going to do with this data? It's a missing puzzle piece that I've heard nothing coherent on besides "China gonna spy on muh datas". Like, sure, maybe if you're a government official, and I don't think bans of tiktok on government devices are stupid, but I think the nationwide ban idea is pretty dumb and baseless. So I guess my actual question is, what are they afraid of happening, exactly?

I think you've managed to define an oxymoron of a society.

Society does not exist without consequences. That's what laws/rules/agreements are necessitated on. As in, a society with no consequences is not a society. I'd go so far to say that society is a system of consequences.

Even in a "lawless societies" hierarchies form, and then agreements turn to rules turn to defacto law.

This is like saying "I can never truly be free because gravity binds me to the ground". Like, ok, sure, but you had to define freedom in a non-standard way to get to that conclusion (I'm trying make this make sense, is it landing well?)

I've found the closest thing to a panacea for this is a mixture of willingness to fail and self forgiveness for falling off the horse. Everyday is a new opportunity to get back on it. And if you're not feeling it today, it's generally ok to just wait until tomorrow (this works for me because I have to be very gentle to myself sometimes, idk if this part will work for everyone. You kind of have to [or at least, I have to] address all the other potential issues, like anxiety or depression, before the motivation to do stuff follows).

Idk why I'm posting this on a shitpost, but if it helps even one person, seems like it's worth posting.

Huh this is the first thing I've read that puts it into a sort of understandable perspective (eternally recovering from my conservative raised childhood, maybe sane people explain it better in general)