it's a losing issue. It's never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down.

You know, that's exactly what people said about Roe v. Wade and about banning abortion.

Turns out that you can keep losing on an issue for 50 years, yet winning only once will drastically change the trajectory of the entire issue.

That's because they like the idea of a Trump dictatorship. They simply assume they'd be on the side that's going to do the dictating.

"I'm sorry that I didn't know there was video evidence."

He also says

Our Founders lay this case out. There’s actually a provision in the Declaration of Independence that a people will suffer abuses while they remain sufferable, tolerable while they remain tolerable. At some point abuses become so intolerable that it becomes not only their right but their duty to alter or abolish the existing government.

But he's not just asking a philosophical question. He's one of the people at the core of the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election and keep Trump in power.

Here, he's providing his ideological underpinnings that he believes gave him the right to alter or abolish the existing government.

Sure, here he's just asking the question if revolution is necessary - but he already answered it in deed when he tried to keep Trump in power against the expressed wish of the electorate.

Clearly the driver is at fault here, but a case can be made (and apparently, was) that this would not have been possible had you not provided access to the car to the perp in question.

This is the equivalent of holding gun manufacturers culpable if someone buys a gun from them and then uses it to commit murder - right?

Euphemism treadmill.

In any sensitive, socially fraught context, terminology will just change faster than in other areas of life.

That's why we no longer use terms like idiot, retard, cripple, imbecile, etc. as neutral, objective terminology. Instead, terms that where initially used as objective, clinical terminology are now exclusively used as slurs and insults.

It's just that when it comes to race, some people (and it's often people not affected by it) have a hard time accepting that concept.

150.000 Jahreseinkommen zu 2. ist aber auch nicht wirklich “reich”.

Wenn du mehr Geld zur Verfügung hast als die unteren 95 Prozent der Bevölkerung, dann würde ich das schon als "reich" bezeichnen.

Bin ja gerne dafür, den Reichen was wegzunehmen zum Wohl aller, aber das ist ja wirklich ne dämliche Aktion.

Reichen Leuten weniger Subventionen zu geben, die sie quasi gar nicht benötigen, ist nicht "den Reichen was wegnehmen." Reiche Leute höher zu besteuern und damit den Leuten, die aktuell nur 300 Euro Elterngeld im Monat bekommen etwas mehr zu bezahlen wäre "den Reichen was wegnehmen." Und da wär ich auch dafür.

People who go to college and then university and then intern somewhere to get a junior position and then a senior position are in their mid 30s when they're in a stable enough position to plan for kids.

By contrast, a lot of people who are happy with a high school degree have kids before they're 20.

This is not a value judgment, but separating people by when they're having kids segments the population of into very distinct strata.

It's not hard to guess why a billionaire who's running a right-wing social media platform would prefer a certain demographic.

Refuse to pay bills for your clouds infrastructure.

Refuse to pay rent for your offices.

Big brain time.

Betteridges Gesetz der Überschriften

"Jede Überschrift, die mit einem Fragezeichen endet, kann mit einem Nein beantwortet werden."

Mods machen unentgeltlich die komplette Arbeit, Reddit sackt die Gewinne ein.

u/spez: "Wie kommt es eigentlich, dass diese Mods, die unbezahlt die ganze Arbeit für uns machen, hier so viel zu sagen haben!?!?!?!!"