I've been trying to answer you question for like an hour using my limited understanding of cancer, viruses, and long term, low dose, chemical exposure. Honestly I'm not a biologist or anything so I really don't have an answer either the most I can say on the matter is that these problems are really not compatible. The way you "target" a cancer cell, or "target" a virus, or target chemicals are whole different and don't really share anything in common. I can also say that BPA is more a problem of long term, low dose exposure that we don't really expect to see a realistic end to anytime soon. You can target it in the body, but we are going to keep being exposed to it for years to come, even if there is a ban on it. The oceans are full of it, the waterways are full of it. Much of the world is already contaminated with it.
I mean just reading through the first part of the article, it is pretty damning that they think mutual aid doesn't work because it doesn't convert enough people to due paying memebers. If the goal isn't the betterment of people, but of furthering political power, then you are no better then the Democrats or Republicans.
Of course most of us don't love it. A lot of us live in places where, due to concepts like gerrymandering, we have no political choice, so people have to resort to stuff like this. We love that people are fighting back, not that it has to be this way.
Something that always gets me is when people lump in anti-religion with these others. Reglion in any country with freedom of religion is a choice, these other things are not. Someone doesn't choose to be a particular ethnic group. Someone doesn't choose to be disabled. People don't choose to be gay or have gender dysphoria People do choose to believe in things that I think are ridiculous and saying that I cannot call that out is just religious people saying you can't call them out. If you can tell me I am burning in hell because I don't believe in your pie man in the sky then I can tell you that you are stupid for believing in a pie man in the sky and comment on absurd actions that are caused by those beliefs.
If you do, please know that it is possible the people at the booth are just low level employees with no say in the corporate policy and while these companies do deserve your ire, these individuals don't deserve you yelling or screaming. By all means let them know your opinion and tell them that version is not welcome at the parade, but don't attack or harass the employees.
I personally don't feel like lumping this in with the kind of shock humor that toilet humor is feels analogous.
This to me, reads just as surrealist humor that is meant to highlight the absurdity of some straight men's homophobia not allowing them to interact with or do anything procieved as gay. Not that I think I needed to explain that to you, just highlighting where i am coming from.
This isn't to say it cannot be shocking, or intended as such, I just don't personally feel like its main purpose is to shock.
I hear this gif
Mormon - m = m (Moron - 1)
Speaking as someone who lives in a lower cost of living area, yeah it is not worth it.
"Only human intelligence can solve" gives answer
They literally are making a new app that, sure, has a very similar look and feel but its for a completely different platform. Sure, it probably shares UI code, but I'm sure a lot of the code to pull from reddit had to be scrapped. I think they deserve to be compensated for their effort and giving any one the app just because they paid for a different app woyls not be compensarion for their efforts. They have to get paid so they can live just like you and me.
I really hate the idea of saying corrected in this context. There is really no right and wrong in language iself. Standardized language is not some "correct" way to speak, but a common guide to try to help an individual be understood by more people. Someone not following standard is not wrong, just maybe difficult to comprehend due to not following convention. I think in one off mistakes that are hard to understand, it is better to thinking in terms of asking for clarification. In more consistent problems of understanding, I think explaining (which is not the same as correcting) to them a more conventional way of speaking to easy future communication is the best path.
Also equating individuals unique linguistic quirks to cancer is gross.