But not everyone is known for it…

since being a person can fully be described by being a mother

Can you explain how this is?

They don’t want to have to hide who they are, make up lies, etc. They are demanding the right to be who they are. I think it’s great.

It’s part of a larger trend of social media blackouts, this is bad because it lets the wealthy control our discource in the furtherance of their oligarchic aims.

Because he had the day off, then came in anyway presumably because they called him in?

I absolutely agree we shouldn’t give up on any political fronts. I just want people to understand that we can’t count on it, a page has turned… Anyway thanks for the chat.

There are not enough, by far. At this point (thanks to scotus) we’ll need a new constitution just to reclaim democracy.

That is all without considering what Trump is likely to cause in his second term. Scotus has ruled that a sitting president cannot, officially break the law. That is not a Republic. Scotus has ruled that money is speech, and so our positions on issues have less (/no) value. That is not democracy.

I’m not trying to be a doomer, just realistic.

I want to take away their power to exploit people.

They don’t want that. They control Congress and the courts. It can’t be done through proper channels because we already lost our Republic. They won’t give it up without a fight.

Yell “Jump!”

I find articles on the onion to be funny in some way. This was just naked approval of the status quo.

I think “describing it as if it were normal” only helps the people who support this arrangement because it gets normalized. That’s where the accusation of conservatism came from, that and the way they tried to shut me down with insults.

Edit: given that there are likely to be a lot of people that agree with this argument unironically, doesn’t it seem irresponsible to play some game where you pretend like you support it? Without ever coming out against it at the end?

Really, it’s just naked approval, with any disapproval left as an exercise to be performed by the reader.

Ii is the real state of the world, but I don’t see any disapproval in the text.

Who would build any sort of factory if they did not know that many people would be available to take the jobs at low-pay rates

Much of the hunger lirerarure talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive. That is nonsense

No one works harder than hungry people.

[…]well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work

For those of us at rhe high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster.

I guess the irony is lost on me. Nothing here indicates that it’s wrong or should change. Also, you’re a huge asshole.

Edit: in fact I know people (conservatives) who are totally fine with this arrangement. They are huge assholes too, huh isn’t that weird.

This is just a bad thing to say to someone. That’s all.

It’s fucked that the author appears to support such an arrangement…

No, the text is pretty fucked, too

So then he’s innocent, case closed.

Check for an asterisk after the file name (in the tab/title bar), it means “unsaved changes”.

Thank you!

What about session state?