Nougat @ Nougat @kbin.social

I am trying to focus on posting source documents, as opposed to someone els

---

Read more

Posts

22

Comments

1,917

Joined

2 yr. ago

Driil, drill, drill?

They have no intention of following through on any of them, ...

That is probably true, but it's elementary for them to say, "The rADiCaL LEfT has once again prevented us from rightfully removing these evil and corrupt officials from power!" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, swatting and bomb threats at least)

I wonder what's going to happen when the swath of impeachments going on fails.

In all fairness, they did whine first before ghosting.

I swear, if not for Illinois, poss Michigan, anything not bordering an ocean would be a flyover state.

Edit: Well, even then, quite a lot of both IL and MI would still be flyover country.

If the fascists are unable to remove their undesirables by bending the law, they will remove them by breaking the law.

Of course, but he's been especially strong in his statements that he was going to stay in the race no matter what. It's not hard to pivot away from questions about your viability, and he chose to go completely the other way.

"Defending itself" is a very generous description of what Israel is doing.

I guess that all those times he said he wasn't going to drop out were ... what's the word for that again?

You have to think most of these guns were brought by accident and were pistols.

While that is certainly true, it doesn't make it much better. It means that a bunch of people are forgetting what they've done with their loaded firearms when they go to the airport. Seems to me that if you are a responsible gun owner, you'd damned well better know where your gun is at all times, especially if it's loaded.

I've been kind of watching this from the sidelines. Requiring separate admin and general use accounts is definitely a good idea, but it doesn't absolutely solve the problem of "someone who possesses greater power expressing themselves in confrontational ways." Once you're wearing an "admin hat," you can't ever really take it off, and you have to know that your actions are always going to be under greater scrutiny, regardless of the user account in question.

However.

I'm a big proponent of "we call people what they want to be called," but this is the very first time I have ever heard that using generic pronouns is somehow consciously offensive. I get that if Party A has made undeniably clear what pronouns they use, and Party B insists on using generic pronouns, yeah, that could be an action consciously intended to offend or put down - but I also think that it's not necessarily and always that way. Context matters, and the context in this particular incident suggests (to me, at least) that transphobia has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Language is an ever changing thing, although it may change more slowly than desired. When you're talking about extremely foundational bits of language - like pronouns - it takes a huge amount of effort (especially for older people, of which I am one) to get your brain to change gears and use the words and thoughts that you want to. I know this from personal experience. When I am talking to or about a person in my own family, who I have known since his birth 18+ years ago, it is extremely difficult to adjust to a "new paradigm," even when "new" means "several years in the making." I suspect that I will always have to make conscious efforts to think and speak in ways that I want to, and that I won't always get it right. Just because I don't always get it right doesn't make me a transphobe.

Forklift that situation over to text on a screen with someone who is essentially anonymous to me, with whom I may never have interacted with before, it's highly likely that I'm going to get it wrong even if I try. Then, if I use the generic pronoun "they" in order to avoid misgendering someone, and I get smacked down for that? That's just plain unreasonable, and I have no interest interacting with anyone who would throw shade for that reason.

For blahaj to threaten defederating with an entire instance over just that is completely unreasonable. Maybe that threat was taken based on an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of the facts. Maybe there are facts that I don't know. What I do know is that just because someone uses strong language to disagree with someone else doesn't mean there's any bigotry at play.

Easy solution to that: Stop using it.

Here's the video, it's in the article. Yes, there were reporters calling questions as he walked away, but they all stopped talking except this one, who spoke loudly and at a reasonable cadence, and Trump's pace and body language suggest that he heard every word, and still chose not to answer. Is it as big a deal as the title makes it out to be? Not at all. Is it absolutely nothing at all, nothing to see here? I don't think it's that, either.

He thought the first primary he won in 2016 was rigged after Ted Cruz won Iowa.

Closing arguments cannot contain commentary "about issues outside the case or about evidence that was not presented," so, yeah, I can't wait.

Exactly.

Asshole.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/services/publications/fhwaop02084/index.htm

The use of red on signs is limited to stop, yield, and prohibition signs.
A white background indicates a regulatory sign;
yellow conveys a general warning message;
green shows permitted traffic movements or directional guidance;
fluorescent yellow/green indicates pedestrian crossings and school zones;
orange is used for warning and guidance in roadway work zones;
coral is used for incident management signs;
blue indicates road user services, tourist information, and evacuation routes;
and brown is for guidance to sites of public recreation or cultural interest.

And "traveler facilities" are blue, right? Camping, gas/food/lodging, hospital, rest areas?

I've heard that notion posed several times. IANAL, but just because Ford and Nixon both thought he needed a pardon does not necessarily mean that he actually needed a pardon. Those are two different things; it is possible that Ford and Nixon were both wrong on the necessity. (Edit: Of note, I don't think they were wrong, but I'm also not a federal judge, so what I think doesn't matter, in the same way as what Ford and Nixon thought didn't matter.)