Got it. Thanks.

I was born in 1977. I had a Gameboy. I just never cared for Pokemon.

That’s not how minimum wage is supposed to work. It’s a minimum for a reason. It doesn’t matter how much work you actually do.

Better than what we have now. Unless you think the corporatist courts will even end up ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

Then it’s weird that pretty much all the countries with high homicide rates, the U.S. included, tend to have legal guns and the ones with low homicide rates tend not to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

You would think there would be some sort of link.

I’m not sure why any of that justifies paying them less than an abled person would for doing the same job.

I dealt with that as a kid with Roald Dahl because he was super antisemitic, but he also wrote amazing children’s books. I guess for me it depends on how much they put such ugliness into their work. Lovecraft, creative as he was, had no problem being racist in his writings and I just can’t read them even though I love the mythos. Dahl didn’t do that.

Card and Rowling are somewhat different cases because they didn’t start by writing terrible things, but they got to the point that their ugly beliefs began to seep into their books.

Yes, but what about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?!

What a headline. And then it turns out that’s exactly the right headline. What a world.

Even if that’s true, fetish gear does not equal furry.

But also, she wears things like Ramones and Dickies shirts. I’m not sure if that counts as elaborate enough?

Calling an iceberg a Borg ship? Damn dude, that’s cold.

This, to me, is less important than the fact that this woman is publicly talking about how someone can do a bad thing but still be a public good, something not talked about enough in a world where when someone does something bad, it makes people ignore everything else they’re doing.

But isn’t the source of the problem the same for both? Or do you mean that people consuming the news just don’t sympathize with murders when it’s a gang war?

I’m not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand this because it gets brought up a lot when mass shootings happen and I guess to me, murder is murder.

When it comes to DEI, I’m not against any people or class of people, but it’d be intellectually dishonest to not recognize the inherent conflict here when you start considering people’s race as an admittance factor.

…ignoring the fact that for over a century, whiteness has been the easiest way to get a job when there’s an equally qualified black person.

That is even true now.

https://nationalfund.org/racial-bias-in-hiring-practices-widens-the-black-white-wealth-disparity/

Fine. Then who? Who has a chance of beating Trump that is also willing to run?

If you don’t have an answer to stopping Trump and other people do but you’re telling them not to do it, thanks for proving my point.

Who has a chance of beating Trump that is also willing to run?

I asked my question. You aren’t answering it.

I will repeat it:

Why does the type of gun violence matter? Why does it matter whether or not they know the victims?

I don’t understand the relevance to the gun control discussion.

You have made your opinion that there should be absolutely no discussion of gun control known many times, so maybe you weren’t the person I wanted an answer from. Especially when you weren’t the one I asked.

Take your agenda elsewhere.

No longer for sale anywhere apparently. Not new anyway.

Then why does it matter what people feel strongly about as opposed to what the reality is?