I’ll take “broad questions that can only be answered in context” for $200 Alex.

Seriously, ask me this question on 10 different days in 10 different ways and I’ll never give the same answer.

Even in the context of your vanilla perfume hypothetical I don’t have enough information to answer. How severe a reaction, what percentage of the population is affected, where is the perfume wearer at the time, why hasn’t it been banned and/or what makes me an expert who’s opinion is worth a damn, etc etc etc?

From what little info I have on the hypothetical (either directly stated or assumed via omission), no, I wouldn’t be upset. I didn’t see anyone being harmed, the perfume wearer wasn’t doing anything illegal, I am personally unbothered by the perfume, and I’ve got my own shit to deal with.

Eta: To make this more clear, I am an ex smoker, who fully agrees that bans on smoking in public areas make sense, but am in no way personally bothered by cigarettes. I also think smoking is more apropos to the question than a mystery perfume, as the harm of smoking and 2nd hand smoke is well established.

If you are smoking on a crowded street, I’ll be upset. But in an alleyway to get away from the crowded street, good on ya, you did what you could.

Smoking near children, get fucked. Smoking while walking home from the pub when only other pub goers are around, you do you. Context is key.

derogatory slang

What did you call me!?

“Here at Zohran Grocers, we’re chopping prices down to size! Don’t lose your heads over these great deals!”

deleted by creator

I own a pair of these. Depending on the game, they add a lot of value to my Steamdeck. But for everyday computing, they are actually very impractical.

I mean, I have evidence that life does in fact occur on a rock in space. The rest is just debating the Fermi paradox.

God/s on the otherhand… not so much.

I get the sentiment of your point, and it’s a fair one. But I have found it to not really hold up to scrutiny anymore. Once I became familiar with Linux at a very base level, I found it ‘‘just works’’ more often than Windows. Especially for the ‘‘just relax, eat junk food and watch netflix’’ style of using a computer.

Like, in that sense, I feel like I have to ‘‘maintain’’ Windows more often, in that I am constantly having to get it out of my way (i.e. turn off adds, deal with automatic updates, etc). My daily use Linux install works the same every day I turn it on.

Don’t get me wrong, I get that learning a new system is harder than dealing with the problems of the one you already know. But if you can use Windows and Linux, and don’t require some proprietary software on Windows, Linux seems to be way ahead in the ‘‘it just works, and works predictably and easy’’ category imho.

Sounds like your turn to step up to the plate then huh?

Very true, but I assume you don’t mean “then why bother at all” right?

And if I’m correct in that assumption, then I figure we can agree that mitigating what you can is still a worthwhile endeavor?

https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/how-to-shop-ethically

It’s crazy right? I guess they hope that blaming the “DEI Boogyman” enough will draw attention away from their actual comic book evil levels of corruption.

Well, if you want to take it from the horses mouth , its supporting DEI and LGBTQ+ rights internationally. Which sounds less like “corruption” and more like “the point”, but what do I know?

And to save everyone a click, here is the link I posted’s full list of “corruption” :

Here are only a few examples of the WASTE and ABUSE:

• $1.5 million to “advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities”
• $70,000 for production of a “DEI musical” in Ireland
• $2.5 million for electric vehicles for Vietnam
• $47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia
• $32,000 for a “transgender comic book” in Peru
• $2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala
• $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt
• Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a non-profit linked to designated terrorist organizations — even AFTER an inspector general launched an investigation
• Millions to EcoHealth Alliance — which was involved in research at the Wuhan lab
• “Hundreds of thousands of meals that went to al Qaeda-affiliated fighters in Syria”
• Funding to print “personalized” contraceptives birth control devices in developing countries
• Hundreds of millions of dollars to fund “irrigation canals, farming equipment, and even fertilizer used to support the unprecedented poppy cultivation and heroin production in Afghanistan,” benefiting the Taliban

The list literally goes on and on — and it has all been happening for decades.

Under President Trump, the waste, fraud, and abuse ENDS NOW.

edit: they say the list goes “on and on”, but I couldn’t find anything. Presumably stuff not added to the aforementioned post were even less convincing, and as such didn’t make the cut.

It certainly is. Unfortunately for all of us, it’s more complicated than the Dems and “lesser of two evil” voters (of which I was one) have been lead to believe as well.

Or they would have… you know… Won.

But hey, if we want to learn the wrong lesson from this again, far be it from me to stop us.

You are not wrong, but I don’t really think abusing the disenfranchised to the extent that they aren’t getting paid at all while food rots away is what I would call a “good path” to living wages.

First off, no one is getting living wages for the work yet, and we have no evidence to suggest they will.

Secondly, even if this does lead to that, maybe we could have found a path forward without all the unnecessary added suffering?

I dunno, it just feels really fucked up to be spinning this like the only outcome is “living wages” when all it has actually done so far is cause additional harm.

The point was obvious…

Chinese censorship is planned and targeted, with the intent to control and suppress dissent. It works hard to maintain a narrative and prevent excessive and rapid shifts so as to achieve a long term goal of control.

The billionaires running American social media (with a special shout to Musk) are mercurial and subject to the petty whims and feelings of the owner.

So while yes, obviously both change and the heads of the CCP are also occasionally subject to emotional responses, the differences between the two are stark and obvious. So no, “everything technically changes” is not a valid counter to the significant differences in intent and volatility.

Claiming you don’t understand the point they were making is just being intentionally obtuse.

No one thinks it’s a case of “weird racism”, but it does seem politically and/or financially motivated. If it was a legitimate threat, they could have informed the public as to the actual threat. The fact that they didn’t reveal it implies doing so would undermine the decision.

Beyond that, most folks are not mad TikTok is getting banned, they (myself included) are mad that obvious and legitimate threats to the public relating to social media and data harvesting are being ignored. And to avoid having that conversation, TikTok is getting a blanket ban.

What if it actually is a very credible threat from an outside actor? Is there a world where that’s possible and acceptable to you?

So to answer this question, yes, that is possible and acceptable in two (not mutually exclusive) worlds. One where the actual threat is revealed so it is obvious why it needs to be addressed. Or two, where the government is also acting in good faith to protect Americans from the other more obvious threats of social media.

Without one or both of those worlds, it is extremely difficult to assume this was a decision made in good faith. Afterall, they didn’t create rules to prevent TikTok from harvesting data, nor create rules that propaganda needs to be monitored and labeled. They didn’t draft up a Digital Bill of Rights to protect Americans, and then ban TikTok for violating it. They just dropped the ban hammer with a “trust me bro”.

And given that, it also shows how far the government is willing to go to avoid holding American companies accountable. Which, imho, is the crux of why so many folks are peeved with this ban.

“They” are the people performing the cited study in this post.

Weird, I said this shit for years, and I was upvoted into the heavens, agreed with, called a hero, and acknowledged as a result.

Maybe is not what was being said?

Some Lemming, who I’m sorry to say I can’t properly credit due to a shit memory, once put it like this.

The UN wasn’t created to stop war, it was created to stop another World War. Giving a veto to a country that has nukes and/or could sustain an extended war against the rest of the world is primarily meant to achieve this goal. And in that regard, it has worked decently.

And while I think that this being the “best compromise” humanity could make sucks ass. The cold logic of it kinda made sense to me.

Not that I’m fully on board with the theory, but you might be surprised how often “solving” a high profile case is placed above actually getting the right man.

This is a publicity nightmare for the police, and getting someone in custody “achieves” placating the public and key stakeholders.

Repeating things about this kids views on the Uni-bomber and referring to his writings as a manifesto “achieves” diminishing his status as a folk hero.

So while I won’t endorse any particular theory until more evidence comes out, it wouldn’t be the first time putting a scapegoat in jail was deemed more important than letting people think the “perp” got away. Even if the hypothetical real shooter kills again, controlling the narrative can be it’s own goal in cases like this.