Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!
Since apparently the only part important about the last time I mentioned this seemed to be specifically which tool the CBP was oppressing minorities with:

Reminder that the US refugee policy is about as openly racist as it can be without outright doing the Family Guy color card

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Gumball Gumption posted:

My mom fell into this left wing conspiracy pretty hard, that Russia changed the actual votes. I think it's a relatively fringe belief with Michael Harriot being one of the bigger names who fell into it. He did really embarrass himself though.https://www.theroot.com/evidence-shows-hackers-changed-votes-in-the-2016-electi-1827871206

I'd say legitimate complaints were about misinfo and people who were hosed up on the Muellerverse believed in the votes being changed. We can play no true Scotsman to find out how much those people count as Democrats.

That seems like a pretty good mea culpa from him and he's a pretty awesome writer on most subjects.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

punk rebel ecks posted:

The Democrats are hosed.

Probably, but a lot of it doesn't have anything to do with the bland humans they can run

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

punk rebel ecks posted:

You’d be extremely surprised. Especially when people start flat out attacking you when politely asking them to leave or escorting them out. It’s hardly an everyday thing but restraints have their purposes. Certainly not in a public school with a 12 year old unless the girl presented substantial danger, like was about to stab somebody.

I think you might want to read that again because I think you both agree. Nobody should be kneeling on necks in any sort of restraint situation.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!
So how bad is the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearing going.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

PeterCat posted:

The Ukrainians are being paroled into the US as refugees, this means that they are given a set period of time to be in the US before they have to apply for admission, which is the term for being legally allowed to be in the United States, versus entry, which is being physically present in the US.

That being said, were you aware that most of the Haitians picked up at Del Rio were allowed to stay in the United States? And that President Biden gave temporary protected status to over 100,000 Haitians last July?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-mayorkas-joins-white-house-briefing-amid-scrutiny-of-u-s-treatment-of-haitian-migrants

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/03/2021-16481/designation-of-haiti-for-temporary-protected-status

Your link goes into detail about how 10's of thousands of Haitians are being expelled back to Haiti and the US has been using Title 42 to deny entry to the majority of refugees/asylum seekers not from "white" countries.


PeterCat posted:

So? He kneeled on her for all of 30 seconds, can't tell if it was on her neck since the video resolution is so low. And handcuffing is the easiest was to control her.

Getting rid of resource control officers has done nothing but increase violence in schools.

https://who13.com/news/parents-continue-to-raise-concerns-about-violence-in-des-moines-public-schools/

"He only kneeled on a child for 30 seconds" oh neat

Paper on school cops:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2018/11/08/does-more-policing-make-middle-schools-safer/

NYT artilce on school cops
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/schools-police-resource-officers.html

Study from think tank on cops in schools:
https://justicepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/educationunderarrest_fullreport.pdf

Police in schools don't appear to have any significant affect at all on safety or school shootings, but what they HAVE been shown increase substantially punishments and arrests of minority children, disproportionately, and they're disproportionately put in schools that are majority children of color.

If you're going to make a claim about the positive effects of school cops, while defending a grown person kneeling on a child, you better come with better than a local news story.

There's not even any data in that poo poo.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!
"Oh well I guess he had to kneel on this this literal child and cuff her".

I would highly recommend folks who feel this way in this thread talk to social workers and similar, who regularly handle grown adults weighing hundreds of pounds with zero neck sitting or cuffs.

Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Mar 22, 2022

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Fritz the Horse posted:

Okay this is probably a good post to remind people itt that D&D :decorum: rules remain in effect and you're welcome to take a posting break if you feel the need to aggressively or passive-aggressively snipe at each other.

Worth noting that poster is threadbanned but somehow half a dozen mods and idiot kings let them post 3 full pages in the previous thread including IKs replying to their posts.

They were in the top 25 posters in that thread. They were banned from it in September of last year, 4 months before that iteration even was created.

I did a double take when I read the probation reason, because I couldn't imagine how that poster was threadbanned.

And that's why I'm posting here instead of DMing this.

edit:
vvv Oh no keep them banned, just based on these two posts alone.

Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Mar 22, 2022

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!
I had to mostly go sober during this because I felt getting more into drinking was going to be a slippery slope.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!
He's not saying he's against interracial marriage, you see, he's saying he's in favor of states rights.

Which has never been used to hide a racist position.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Bishyaler posted:

Remember how a bunch of people insisted that sanctions wouldn't result in Russian citizens starving? About that.



https://twitter.com/VICE/status/1506058340903882752?s=20&t=9VMAT0xVTru_cS-yVX5bQg

I was one of the people saying it would cause stuff like this.

I guess we can hope if people get desperate enough they'll throw themselves at Putins government?

Seems like a pretty cruel tactic.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

bobua posted:

What's the alternative to sanctions? I've always understood it as pretty much sabre rattling, then sanctions, then bombs. Is the argument just for different sanctions, skipping sanctions, or other?

If you don't care about human suffering, then yes that's your 3 options.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Florida is now actively refusing to recognize trans athletes, considers being trans cheating, and declaring that only cis athletes can be recognized as winners in sporting matches.

Pretty wild, even given the history of wild anti-trans moves recently.

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1506556130390126611

It's not wild at all. Transgender women are the powerless group they can be performatively cruel to. They'll keep pushing it as long as it plays, and oh boy do conservatives love this issue. They cannot get enough of making fun of transgender women.

They also get the TERFs so it can be bipartisan performative hate.

That lady just wanted to compete in swimming and now she's going to live the next few years in constant fear so that some thumb-shaped walking bowtie can get votes.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Harold Fjord posted:

Seems like a good way to get Florida schools barred from participating.

I don't know any organization that would put up with being told some participants insist on declaring themselves the winners of its events.

That would require people who are not transgender to actually step up on the behalf of them. Lets see if it happens.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

shimmy shimmy posted:

poo poo's pretty hosed but it would be amusing in a very mean way to see a trans man absolutely dominate their sport instead. granted, that means subjecting that poor trans man to what i'm sure is going to be some insane levels of cruelty, but nobody ever ever ever seems to remember you can be trans in more than one direction.

She was beaten in the 100 by a transgender man(competing in the women's category) who did significantly better than her and came in 7th I believe. She came in last.

But nobody seems to even be aware that happened because transgender hate is 100% about homophobia and misogyny.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

shimmy shimmy posted:

To be honest I haven't looked into the details of any of it since it gets too depressing/infuriating for me as a trans woman, but yeah, not surprised.

I understand.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!
Also on the transgender athletics issue, prepare to become super familiar with a single study and the number 12%, which is what a study in 2021 said was the advantage transgender women who have gone through male puberty have in some areas(but not others).

All the transphobes I encounter online are clinging to it like superglued velcro.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

VitalSigns posted:

Interesting that nobody cares about biological factors that give way more than a 12% advantage in some sports like say being tall

I guess there's some that do and use things like weight classes, but like nobody insists tall people should be banned from basketball to make it fair for short people

It depends.

Does the advantage come in the form of a cis man like Michael Phelps, who produces half the lactic acid of anyone else and has super flexible joins? That's acceptable.

Does the advantage come in the form of Caster Semenya, a cis woman who naturally produces a bit more testosterone than the average? No that's a ban.

See if you can identify the relevant difference.

Kalli posted:

Yeah, it's remarkably naked bigotry. Pre transition the athlete in question was... 10s slower then the top male competition. In transitioning, she lost about 20s off her time and was.... 10s slower then the top female competition.

If you mention any of this to transphobes it's pure Westworld. They won't even acknowledge you wrote a thing.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Archonex posted:

Seeing the way folks in this forum turned on him for calling his colleagues out on their two faced bullshit was an eye opener, that's for sure.

I think it was Friendbot who went from campaigning for him to wholesale buying the lies that were being sold all because Carter was openly hostile (to where the public could see it, heaven forbid!) to people who had no intention whatsoever of following through on their promises or representing the best interests of their constituent voters. All while claiming that he alienated support by...yelling at his opposition and demanding that those around him worked for the common good instead of their own personal interests? Fuckin' terrifying stuff for a certain type of person, i'm sure.

And to be clear, i'm not saying that everyone who was against him because of him forcing the vote was just selfish. But I am saying that they were dumb. Sometimes it's good to be a dick. And sometimes it makes you really loving dumb to be mad at someone being a dick to someone else if the person being harangued has openly and callously made it clear that they weren't going to do the right thing no matter what. It's just a shame that Carter got hosed for it. And the quantity of stupidity on display somehow doubles if the person in question is exposing the corruption of so called allies by doing it.


I should also point out that the people mad because Carter would be a dick towards those that deserved it are the exact reason why centrists, corporatists, and right wingers all get away with weaponizing wagging the finger about decorum and unity at anyone to the left of them while simultaneously betraying the values their voters put them in office over.

Ultimately, if everything is mandated to be nice and polite then no one can see what the real character of people are. Which makes it much easier to ratfuck someone behind closed doors and not have any hints of it come out until after the damage is irreversible.



Edit: Hell, this goes beyond Carter and into politics at large. Just take a recent example: The republican/s that were trying to snobbishly build up support for Putin by claiming that the Ukrainian president wasn't wearing a suit (Basically: "He's so unprofessional! The horror! This man isn't looking like he lives the high life while representing the resistance forces of Ukraine!" only in decorous terms.) during a public address were pulling the same poo poo. Though thankfully it seems that no one bought that nonsense that time.

If you're going to be participating in electoral politics, you have to play nice somewhat. That includes humoring people who would gladly toast your death behind your back.

It's a dirty system and politics is a extremely frustrating and bullshit-infused. "Being a dick" certainly feels good and righteous but likely as not it just makes you ineffective as an operative.

If you want to be mad and yell true things at politicians, you should be an activist, not an elected rep.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!
If you're going to be an elected rep, you win the fights you can, and you lose more than you win.

It sucks, but you're an idiot if you try to get elected to office without realizing that.

Saying "oh Lee would have to compromise his values to stay in office" is trivially true. Yes. Of course he would.

"They'll limit how much a leftist can do, if anything" Yes of course they will.

Why the gently caress would you get into politics if you realize that? Assuming he's not a domestic abuser, that's great that he ejected himself on principle, but kinda silly he was there in the first place.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Archonex posted:

This is ignoring my post/s pointing out how this is counter-intuitive to staying in office or getting things done. We even have posters in this very forum who are hardcore into purity politics and have openly refused to vote for anyone that doesn't meet their standards. If they're representative of a necessary part of the population of left leaning people to stay in office then you're essentially hosed either way, so why not make for at least the opportunity of positive change on the way out the door?

Also, all this is is you essentially arguing for a strategy where the people in favor of the status quo must make a mistake to such an extreme degree that progress can possibly happen for anything to even have a chance of getting done. Which is just bad tactics in any profession or situation. In any competitive field your approach should never rely on your opponent failing in their own efforts as part of an attempt to actually succeed or win on your own behalf.

I'd even go so far as to say that it's arguing in favor of a status quo by default, given that there is this weird obsession with just going "That's politics! :allears:" when people point out the fallacies in the strategy of quiet acceptance and the many, many, many, times and ways it's failed in the past.

I don't think anything Lee did was making an opportunity for positive change. I think the opportunity he had, limited as it was, involved him staying in office if he was going to the electoral route for change, rather than the activist or radical route.

If the argument is that the status quo is such that the status quo needs to make a mistake for an elected leftist to get anything done at all....then why would you waste the time and energy to get elected? If you're hosed either way what opportunity was there for positive change, even on the way out?

If you're going to say "well it made it clear they weren't going to have that vote" but also them not having that vote for years made it clear that they weren't going to have that vote so I'm not sure what the win was.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Harold Fjord posted:

What is this Carter did domestic violence talk about? Everything I can find is about him talking about being abused and predates all of that RTW stuff. P

I've never heard any of it but several people in this thread seem to think there's something to it.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Archonex posted:

To be fair, this isn't actually true. It's not that the rules weren't allowing for it. It's that the people who had power over those rules didn't want it to happen. This is a far easier to correct problem as those people can be voted out, though it demands both significant amounts of time and effort to build the necessary support to get a proper majority representing the interests of the populace and not private interests.

The rules ultimately said nothing about whether or not it should happen. It just so happened that the people in power disagreed with the idea of RTW being repealed, so they manipulated the rules for years on end until Carter forced them to show their hand.

I've already summed up my thoughts fairly succinctly, and even explained the last point you made in depth. At this point it's obvious that you won't be swayed no matter what anyone says, and I certainly don't believe a word of what you're saying due to my own experiences with politics.

Hell, you haven't even rebutted the points aside from essentially saying "Well I think differently.". There is no explanation for the rationale you have based on prospective outcomes or how it would be perceived by the public at large and his future election prospects, something that is utterly integral for a politician in a democracy to consider. Why would that outcome you suggest have worked out? Why would the reputability of Carter not be damaged by doing what you say when so many other politicians quietly laying down on hot topic issues have been in the past?


You've explained none of this and disregarded far more, instead making a vague gesture at "Well, at least he'd have kept his office as an ineffectual politician!" as if that matters in matters not related to holding the majority position. I'll also take a moment to note that this is exactly the view that has so many democrats on here enraged at the national party, as so much of the establishment seem content to aspire only to be a lame duck/controlled opposition or are sabotaged by a minority that actively seeks this position for the party at large such as Manchin, Sinema, and the conservative dems.

You even have misconstrued several points i've made, somehow trying to attribute things i've extrapolated off of you saying and then trying to attribute them to my own side of the argument.

To be honest, if this is the extent of the conversation we can have i'm not certain there's any point in continuing it since it's functionally impossible to talk against a vague set of talking points instead of detailed analysis.

I don't think you've really refuted anything I've said beyond making tangential arguments that decorum fetishization is bad(which I don't disagree with and wasn't arguing for), and also making the argument that Lee was already a lame duck due to his lack of infrastructure and so literally the only useful thing he could do was to flame out publically.

I don't think that constitutes an argument that is substantially at odds with what I'm saying, it sounds like you're having an argument with what you think I'm saying.

And if you think I'm arguing in bad faith, take it to the mods.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

VitalSigns posted:

On this issue you mean surrender, not compromise. There was no compromise on the table, he was not offered half a loaf which he foolishly refused only to end up with nothing at all. The state party was not willing to meet him halfway to negotiate a mutually acceptable deal on right to work. They wanted no bill, no progress, no change to right to work at all.

The offer was they get everything, we get nothing. And not only must he totally give in and stop making a serious effort to help working people, he had to help the Democrats lie to the people about their intentions and conceal from his constituents that the party opposed the bill.

Somebody is being unreasonable here and it's not the side who was expected to not only totally surrender but aid the other side in deceiving the people of Virginia to boot

The compromise would have been his values, not with the leadership. I'm aware they were intending to go nowhere with it.

Like I said, I respect his stance to leave, but I don't know what he was expecting by getting into electoral politics.

VitalSigns posted:

One thing I have trouble understanding in serious elevated political discourse, is why the people who want good things are the only ones expected to compromise, but the people who want just plain evil things are automatically assumed to be reasonable and are never expected to compromise. Really that's not accurate, because for the people who want good things to compromise, the people who want bad things would by definition have to be compromising with them, so really the good people are just always expected to 'be reasonable' by surrendering totally.

That's not true. Everyone has to compromise. But if you have no power, no infrastructure as the other poster put it, and nothing to offer or take away....then nobody has any need to compromise with you. That's, in fact, the basic argument you are making when you say you'll withhold votes from democrats. And it doesn't get anything done yet, because there's not enough people doing it. And when you start to have enough, you're going to start compromising your values, because you're going to let some bad things happen in order to prove your point and gain your power, and that's going to suck.

I'm not saying "be reasonable". Politics is incredibly unreasonable. There are no good people in politics because politics doesn't reward being good. Every politician you've ever admired has made deals you'd be horrified at.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

VitalSigns posted:

Yeah I think that was basically the deal he was offered.

You have no power to get this bill passed over our opposition, so you play your part and help us pretend we don't oppose it, and in exchange you get to keep your power and take credit for the stuff that we'll allow to pass which is no different from what any other Blue Who Didn't Matter Who would accomplish with your seat. Or we run you out and get someone who will play ball.

It wasn't a deal to get some stuff passed rather than nothing, it was a deal to buy in and get on the gravy train.

Maybe he thought his only leverage was to threaten them with exposure by forcing the vote, gambling they might vote for it rather than reveal their hand to the voters ahead of an election year, he tried it and it failed. But it's not like selling out would haver brought more benefits to the people, only to him personally so eh not really the same as making some awful compromise to get like Medicare passed or something.

It's possible that building up some power would have later allowed him to do some good stuff, but without a substantial power base, yeah he's just going to be able to do nothing.

And yes, building up power would have required him to abandon a bunch of principles.

That's how this works. That's why I don't run for office(among dozens of other reasons)

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Pobrecito posted:

I thought this was a very interesting twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/julianeusner/status/1506798121283584000

(White) Ukrainian refugees getting a Disney Fastpass into the country while (Brown) Mexican refugees get turned away under Title 42 grounds at the exact same port of entry because there’s a pandemic going on, dontcha know?

Literally the family guy skin color meme.

Everybody always knew this what this was about.

It's useful to see it explicit, but pretty much everyone knows what the real issue is, and it was extra obvious as soon as Europe swallowed a million Ukrainian immigrants with zero protests but stopped the black Ukrainians at the border.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Willa Rogers posted:

Also, this chart for lols since I came across it while looking for the med-cost survey:



This is why I call out liberals when they're ventriloquizing conservatives "not wanting programs for those people."

(I realize that these sentiments were likely colored by the orange cheeto running things at the time.)

I realize Medicaid is not Medicare, but you're aware that was at least part of the reason for limiting Medicare to olds right?

Same reason why SS was initially much more limited.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!
That's interesting because when I try to talk science with TERFs they don't want to talk science.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Willa Rogers posted:

I meant liberals who say that single-payer will never ever happen bc those guys over there don't want people of color to get it, when liberals themselves are the emperors of means-testing and other gate-keeping that ends up hurting people of color. (See KFF charts above about who's impacted the most when it comes to medical costs.)

Historically it's true.

I'm not a liberal, but I am saying that single payer is hard to get passed because the white people over here(ie democrats and the liberals) also don't want people of color to get it.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Oxyclean posted:

Second: Seems really short-sighted. You can squeeze employees more, but with people having less disposable income, they're going to eat your second rate junk less.

Executives only work short sighted. You're likely going to have moved in within 3 years so this quarter is all that matters.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Willa Rogers posted:

^^^ lol, ofc.

lol, no; it's because the "stakeholders" in the industries who would stand to lose have made their views (and correlating dollars) known, and because politicians & corporate media have echoed the industries' propaganda (including how those others will oppose it bc those other others will benefit by it).

It's both of those things. Never underestimate the racism of white people as part of US politics.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Willa Rogers posted:

^^^ "We starved some folks."

I'll try to not do that (nor have I done that). But as someone who has tracked healthcare in this country & its political trajectory over the last four decades I can emphatically state that one of these things is the greater (and greatest) cause of single-payer derailment.

I never said you did, nor did I say that it was the greater of the two causes. Your earlier post made it sound like "ventriloquism" was completely unfounded, and I'm saying it's not.

It sounds as if we mostly agree.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!
People used to say that Thomas was Scalia's puppet, and it was racist then.

You can hate Thomas and his wife both for a ton of valid reasons and don't need to do weird takes.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Bishyaler posted:

Haven't a bunch of liberal-leaning people in this thread argued that the mass hardship and death caused by sanctions is worth it for regime change? How come its okay for other countries but not us?

Have they? Go ahead and quote 3 or more of them since you said "a bunch".

Though this kind of response would kind of indicate you agree with them?

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Bishyaler posted:

Well, in the last thread here's people that argued for sanctions:

None of those make the argument you wish they had made.

And again, you're arguing that if they were, they were right.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Bishyaler posted:

This all goes back to Mellow Seas making the point: "Transitioning from one government/constitution to another is not easy and would produce massive amounts of hardship (if not an outright war), most of which would fall on the most vulnerable"

Which happens to be the entire point of sanctions. So if you are pro-sanctions you are pro massive amounts of hardship.

So again, why is forcing hardship to generate regime change overseas acceptable, but regime change shouldn't take place here because of the hardship that would be generated?

Those people seem to think that sanctions work in many ways(oligarchs only, and such poo poo), and that it's possible for them to happen without mass suffering being the point. I don't agree with them.

I don't see anyone who thinks that regime shouldn't happen in the US based on the suffering, I think Mellow is pointing out that it will happen, which people like to gloss over.

I'm not sure anyone in the thread is making the argument you're trying to argue against.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Nonsense posted:

https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1507197054275174400?s=20

The right have completely gone insane at investigative reporters going for Thomas’ stupidly-obvious-evil wife.

It's not going "completely insane". It's how people who know they are in the wrong handle any hint of accontability. If you react at a 10 no matter what, people stop trying to hold you accountable because it's too much work.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

punk rebel ecks posted:

It's something that other democratic nations do all the time. It's not exactly some unholy unheard of radical idea.

I'm not disagreeing or disbelieving you, but I can't find any examples of this.

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

Yeah this may be its own can of warms but there is no such thing as “fairness” in sports, especially when you are speaking on an individual by individual level.

Correct. It's not about fairness, at all. Nobody has issues with Michael Phelps producing a fraction of the lactic acid as his competitors, combined with hyper-flexible joints....which is a huge unfair advantage.

It's about transmisogyny.

Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Mar 27, 2022

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

lol he got that one from a batshit lady in texas who was running for minor office.

who probably got trolled by some kid who's very loving smug right now.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
Probation
Can't post for 3 days!

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Gas prices aren't bothering all Americans.

Alaska has collected so much money in excess tax revenue, that they are running out of ideas on how to spend it.

The entire Alaskan state budget last year was $4.3 billion. They are expecting to bring in $6 billion in oil revenue for 2022 - not including all other tax sources.

They have already put $1.2 billion into a rainy day fund for education, given out an additional $1,300 check to all Alaskan residents, paid off more than half of the state's outstanding debt, increased education spending by $59 million, and have to decide what to do with an additional billion dollars after they ran out of ideas.

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1508530636713345029

They could provide healthcare to folks but lol Alaska.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply