I'd rather be in the Idiocracy timeline. At least the leaders in that timeline looked for, and hired, the smartest people they could find to solve problems.

My first thought was "wait until they hear about Shakespeare". Literally every role filled by men, sometimes with the script explicitly calling for a man to play a female in full attire.

I'd also hate to see what policies they'll enact for their chorale program when performing historical hymns, where soprano parts specifically called for a male eunuch (castrato) to sing since females were not allowed to attend church services including choirs.

In my younger years I would have been absolutely vilified by these people. I'm probably vilified now, but I would've been then too. In all seriousness though, I cannot believe how far backwards we've gone in all this. I recognize that these thoughts and feelings have existed since before I was a kid but at least back then people seemed to have the decency to mind their own.

But to attack theatre of all things with this gender bullshit is attacking theatre itself. Crossdressing in theatre has existed for as long as theatre has existed. Cross-singing has existed for as long as singing has existed. If they're not teaching that stuff in their performing arts programs, they are denying young adults a quality education of the performing arts.

Edit: tl;dr ITT I try and fail to convey that terrorists using innocent people as meat shields/hostages is wrong and a government bombing those terrorists along with their hostages is also wrong. I dunno how that's too confusing for anyone to understand but I guess some folk truly are lost causes.

Original comment below:

Are you implying that Israel has not done any bombing whatsoever? Or are you implying that terrorists hiding behind innocent people means everyone involved must die by bombing? Or are you just a troll trying to get a reaction from people by posting an obviously ignorant comment?

Let me ask you this, if some bank robbers took your family and friends hostage, what do you think the response should be? By your own logic I must assume that they all need to die because criminals were using them as meat shields. By your logic, if your home is being robbed and the robber uses you as a shield, the response should be to mow you down along with the robber. How unlucky for you that the robber chose your house eh? How ignorant.

And if you're struggling to put yourself in those shoes, good. Be glad that you're so far removed from such dangers. But you are not immune. Criminals and potential terrorists exist everywhere, and I truly hope that if you ever find yourself in a hostage situation that the response isn't what you idolize for innocent people in a foreign land. Because even unemphatic scum don't deserve to die simply for being a hostage.

I'd like to assume that you simply forgot a "/s", and I apologize if the sarcastic intent of your comment was lost, but there are people that truly believe what you've said.

A quote from the judge according to the article:

"I just can't believe being evicted would justify picking up a handgun in that small of a space with children present"

What I find particularly concerning about this is that this implies that being evicted would justify picking up a handgun provided you're not in an enclosed space with children present. Why in the actual fuck would there be any further qualification after "I just can't believe being evicted would justify picking up a handgun". Full stop. You're being evicted. You fucked up. Firearms don't belong in that conversation at all with the only possible exception I can think of being if you are being directly and illegally threatened with a firearm.

Ugh.

I wouldn't pretend it's not something terrorists would do. I think what people are upset about is more like: let's assume that there is a terrorist HQ being run in a school. Let's also assume their are innocent people of any and all ages in that same school. Finally, let's assume there are only two options to deal with the terrorist HQ (there could be others in reality but for this exercise there are only two options).

Option a) bomb the school, injuring and killing everyone inside. Option b) a specialized operation that will only target the terrorists but may result in casualties to your army.

People, and myself, are upset that the option being chosen seems to overwhelmingly be option a, the indiscriminate injury and death of everyone in the building whether innocent or terrorist. No judge and no jury for anyone involved, only death.

For me at least, this cartoon is not pointing out that terrorists would run an HQ in a school. It's pointing out that currently the IDF cannot, or will not, see past the fact that this is still a picture of a school. It may contain a terrorist HQ, but it's not a building labeled "terrorist HQ" with the sole function of being a terrorist HQ. This is a picture of a school that may also house a terrorist HQ. And that is a very very important distinction that seems to be wildly ignored.

If you criticize the few good/decent policies that are being passed/proposed, maybe. But at least from what I've seen, especially online, Biden and any other (D) being pushed on the people aren't seen as some savior. In fact I would argue almost the opposite. I think many Democrats see Biden and the rest of the moderates being passed off as Democrats as simply the lesser of two evils.

Likewise, just because a candidate has an (R) next to their name doesn't automatically make them evil. Their public stance and proposed policies are what make 90+% of them evil. I couldn't give two shits what letter appears next to Trump, Desantis, McConnell, etc. They're not bad people because they run under the Republican party, they're bad people because they're very explicitly against Americans that can't afford to pay them enough to pretend to care. Donald Trump almost ran as a Democrat years before he actually ran as a Republican and guess what? He's the same asshole either way that never would have gotten my vote.

So yes, if you agree with white supremacist neo-Nazi policies and ideals, or disagree with policies intended to defeat white supremacist neo-Nazi ideals, I will most certainly assume that you are a white supremacist neo-Nazi. This honestly shouldn't be that difficult to understand. And that honestly makes me think you're simply a troll but I guess I'll take the bait. In case it's not perfectly obvious by now, fuck Biden. But fuck white supremacist neo-Nazis more. Like for real, it would not be difficult at all to get a fuckton of "Democrats" to vote (R) if y'all could put up some half-ass decent candidates instead of the backwater scum y'all currently idolize. But instead of doing that and actually running candidates that stand by the true conservative ideology (what ever happened to sticking up for personal rights and small government?) most candidates (Democrats and Republicans alike) only stand by whatever will gain them the most.

I would even go so far to say that I would probably fall more under the old conservative ideology with some liberal tendencies, but I will NOT support anyone that wants to disenfranchise, discriminate, and take away personal liberties. I'm not LGBTQ+, I'm not trying to get an abortion, I don't have kids to worry about schools or lunches; I'm a straight white cis male with a Christian background that would largely be personally unaffected by any of the current Republican stances, but I do have at least a tiny bit of empathy and that's enough to see that just because someone isn't the same as me doesn't make them any less human than me. To suggest anything else is simply fucked up and evil. AND goes againstliterally everything in my Christian upbringing. So given the choice of supporting the modern Christo-fascist, or voting for literally anyone else provided they have some principles and empathy, I know who's getting my support every time without a doubt.

The article doesn't explicitly call it out, but the judge and the principle share a last name? The judge granted a much more lenient ruling than the prosecutor wanted though so I'm not assuming they're (closely) related, but I would think a thorough journalist would at least mention trying to find a link in the family tree.

What is the punishment for disclosing the confidential material that he is reviewing? And what punishment would a "normal" person face? If the answers are anything like the punishment Trump faced for violating a court-mandated gag order, I suspect he will talk about these confidential documents, and punishment will consist of a harsh tone and finger wagging. And don't be fooled, to the wealthy (or to those receiving large sums in political donations), a monetary fine measured in thousands of dollars is just that: a harsh tone and finger wag.

IDGAF if he's the former president. IDGAF if it were Biden, Clinton, or the most liberal/Democratic person in existence. If they break the law, if they break court orders, punish them equally.

This is infuriating. Let me make sure I've got this right:

So, our military personnel "volunteer" to serve, and in doing so are forced to reside at whatever military base in whichever State/country that the higher ups decide. Then the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which allowed for existing abortion bans to go into effect in various states as well as paved the way for other abortion bans to be put into effect. Our military personnel are also bound by the laws of wherever they are stationed. To help alleviate the concerns of our military personnel, President Biden issued a travel reimbursement policy so that our volunteer based military personnel wouldn't have to pay to travel somewhere that they more agree with the laws of, to have a medical procedure performed that is outlawed where they have been forced to reside. Then this chucklefuck Tuberville decides to block any and all military promotions because he essentially thinks that the most regressive state laws should apply to the entire volunteer based military. And then he complains that the military is facing personnel issues? Excuse me but what the fuck? Am I missing something?

I don't think anyone is even forcing states to allow abortions for military personnel, just trying to provide travel reimbursement so that personnel can go to a state that hasn't banned abortions without having to pay the travel costs themselves. Right? Why wouldn't we want that policy? Military personnel don't get to choose where they're stationed (they do sometimes get some say but they don't make the final decision) so why not reimburse them if they're forced to travel for medical reasons?

If he thinks the military is facing personnel issues now, and at least partially because he's interfering, has he even considered the ramifications of taking even more rights away from people that volunteer to serve? I mean, ffs they already give up many of their rights as is. And abortion bans have already proven to be an extremely unpopular policy, with citizens in several Republican states already voting against said bans and in fairly large numbers with large margins to boot.

I legitimately feel like I must be missing something. Can this guy really be this stupid? Or does he actually despise the American people? Is there some pro-life lobbying group ~~bribing~~ donating to him for him to do this?

Idk about OP but I've been ashamed of my country since at least ~~2016~~ ~~2001~~ ~~1990~~ ~~August 6, 1945~~ the 17th century when "we" decided that land settled by Native Americans somehow belonged to us. I wasn't alive for most of that time but I guarantee my country has done shameful things for muuuch longer than 24 days.

So so very close to piecing together why bombing a refugee camp even if there are terrorists or supporting infrastructure located there is a terrible idea.

I truly don't know how you can recognize that Hamas wants civilians to die because it will strengthen their numbers, and still excuse the bombing of civilians. Perhaps you're just trolling?

I had to check. They actually said this. I've never played Warhammer (I have been interested, just haven't gotten around to it) and I don't know these devs at all, but contradicting themselves with just seven words in the same sentence is actually kind of impressive.