Trickle down economics, as a theory, has been around well over 100 years, and it’s never been believed in by everybody. Hell, a presidential candidate gave a speech against the idea in 1896

You’re correct about misinformation having been around forever, but access to and ease to create misinformation is greater than ever before thanks to the Internet.

Because there couldn’t be any legitimate reason to do the things they’re banning, like cloud seeding, crop dusting, air dropping seeds for reforesting, I dunno, literally releasing anything as you fly over even like CO2 exhaust as mentioned by the other commentor.

Literally all matter is a chemical, chemical compound, or substance. IMO this law is going to be struck down super fast just for being overly broad. Not that that would stop Republicans from passing it and spending millions of dollars in public money defending it in court.

You mean birth rates + immigration > people leaving the state? I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you.

Seriously though, there does need to be an asterisk after “fleeing” that says “if they can afford it” which, let’s be honest, excludes most people who want to leave the state.

My parents were just telling me about a friend of theirs who moved back to Ohio… fucking Ohio… after discovering that retirement in Florida was terrible.

Yeah it must be pretty bad if Ohio and Kansas are looking better.

Never mind that the whole point of a provisional ballot is “I don’t know if this vote is valid, but here it is just in case it is valid”

I feel like casting a provisional ballot should protect you in cases like hers, not condemn you!

I feel like this probably explains some things…

I wish I had your optimism.

IMO the only thing that would get that country to revolt, to the point of creating real change, is mass starvation.

I never watched Ghoulies, but I’ll never forget walking through the rental store and the box was eye-level with tiny kid me. Scarred me pretty bad. After that I was terrified of flushing the toilet, so toilet lid always had to be down and as soon as I flushed I would run from the bathroom.

Took me probably twenty years to completely get over it.

I think you missed the point where I said “it’s not about nuance.”

I’m not claiming my examples don’t have nuances, I’m claiming that many (most) people have things on which they won’t compromise. Standards, if you will. Those standards may have nuance, but they remain uncompromising.

To use your examples, if “not trimming their toenails enough” is a deal breaker for someone, then the nuance of “but they shower ever day” doesn’t matter.

Because it’s not about nuance. It’s about deal breakers.

Oddly, I thought that was one of the worst parts about Google+. I get your point though and I respect your opinion, I just thought it was interesting how we disagree 😄

You’ll notice that on the list of things that are illegal to discriminate against, everything is either an immutable part of the person (national origin, race, gender) or is something that is unethical to ask a person to change about themselves (religion).

Political beliefs are nowhere on the list, because they’re not immutable and it’s not unethical to ask somebody to change them.

Discriminating against somebody for their political affiliation or political beliefs is legal and, in some cases, moral/ethical.

(As an aside, this is what makes all the people wanting to discriminate against LGBTQ people on religious grounds so egregious; they always had the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people on political grounds, but that wasn’t enough for them. They had to do it “in the name of God.”)

they aren’t

You just haven’t seen it yet. Try coming out to them as trans, see how that goes for you.

It’s not about nuance. It’s about deal breakers. For some people, a deal breaker might be something like poor hygiene. For other people, it might be voting for or otherwise supporting politicians who belong to a party that’s actively trying to curtail human rights for anybody who isn’t a white cishet man.

That you or anybody else would find the first example acceptable, but not the second, is ridiculous.

Great video, thanks for sharing.

Play with swords.

I do historical reenactment in the SCA and the fencers use actual metal blades to fight. It’s HEMA but with fun clothes and a ton of other optional activities like brewing and making our own coins (those are my chosen activities, but a lot of people do costuming, calligraphy, music, apothecary… the list goes on).

It makes my inner child so happy 😊

You’re 100% correct, but don’t think that’s enough for Meta. It’s inherent to the nature of corporations to sell to grow, ie increase market share. If Meta thinks it can increase it’s market share, even a little, by destroying mastodon.social it will.