???

Richard ‘I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it’ Stallman?

That Richard Stallman?

(I know he has since changed his views, the ‘allergic to PR’ part just seemed to be a bit of an understatement. Not trying to start an argument, just thought that was funny)

Do EVs have connecting rods? The article does go into right to repair, sounds like the company is pro DIY repair so that’s promising at least.

FUTO also has this feature thankfully cuz I guess switched to Colemak two weeks ago myself

Chicago has a pretty big police force unfortunately. Looks like around 12- 13k little piggies (source)

So about 25 cops here leaves… roughly 12- 13k cops in the rest of the city :P

ETA: fun facts, the Chicago Police Dept budget is just below $2 billion. That puts it right below Slovakia’s entire military budget. Slovakia’s population is ~5.5 million vs. Chicago’s 2.7 million people.

Chicago alone has almost as many cops as the entirety of Ireland (which has 14.6k cops for 5.3 million Irish citizens)

Hey, I work for canon in tech support right now. Trying to find a better job though haha

Your neighbor says women wearing dresses isn’t transphobic, but not respecting pronouns is?

Why do we need competitiveness among minorities when they’re already at a disadvantage? The competitiveness should be equal between minorities and majorities, otherwise it’s not a meritocracy, it’s just oppression.

Edit to add: the disadvantage I’m referring to is bigoted hiring practices that are well documented, and a history of oppression.

I think you’re just chronically online. Just say female if you’re in a conversation and want to exclude trans women. Most trans people won’t care as long if the context isn’t transphobic. I really don’t see why it’s unacceptable to have an adjective if you’re describing a subset of women. Like there’s not a singular noun for “tall men” but if you’re actually not being transphobic then whatever.

Again with sexual orientation, it sounds like you’re saying that because chronically online. There are people who say it’s transphobic to say straight but exlude trans people. Again, context and intent matters. You can just say straight. This one is tricker because not all trans people have surgically transitioned, genital preference matters, and orientation is a spectrum.

And it’s a tough subject within the trans community itself, because it’s frustrating to present as a gender, transition in every way to that gender, be accepted and pass for that gender, only for someone to say they aren’t attracted to you only after they find out you’re trans. What other conclusion would you have other than transphobia? And it doesn’t help that it often is accompanied by blatant transphobia.

So if someone is calling you transphobic, either the context is also transphobic or they’re misunderstanding your intent.

Because crimes should be handled in a criminal court case with real consequences, not a civil case. But that’s not likely to happen.

So if someone did sue them, and against all odds they won, and the money they received somehow properly compensated for their loss (i.e. a loved ones preventable death), then the company that extracts billions of dollars from Americans every year would lose a couple million. The company would be unaffected and have no meaningful consequences for their willfully unethical behavior. We’d have to have thousands of successful lawsuits to have meaningful consequences.

That’s not implied by their logic at all. Not every person is in a position of power like this CEO was, the majority of people don’t have a job that denies people necessary healthcare, and many people will not make the choice to be unethical like this CEO chose.

I understand, and disagree with, the argument that vigilante justice is completely uncalled for but you’re not doing your argument justice here

Honestly, yeah. She’s been in government positions for decades and hasn’t had any real scandals. The worst thing I heard was that when she was a DA, her department worked with the local police, and the police department had a lab tech that was stealing cocaine and was testing the product at work several times. And a judge scolded the police department and DA office for not doing a better job handling that issue.

She had a pretty decent record of good morals and making effective, positive changes. Unless there’s someone I haven’t heard

So the people in cities should just be worth less when they vote? It’s a federal vote for a federal office, everyone in the country should count the same.

The individual states already have their own powers which make sure the federal government doesn’t make decisions that are bad for those states. And each county and town have their own governments that pass local laws.

I’ve also heard this argument so many times but I haven’t heard any actual examples.

Wrong thread, this is postal workers withholding mail

Yes, they are not the same thing. That’s what a comparison is. If you think it’s a bad comparison, feel free to explain why you think so

What do you mean “doesn’t like”? The federal government “doesn’t like” citizens sending bombs in the mail, and they would deny you that, yes. I’m not sure what the point of your reply was, it doesn’t argue against anything I’ve said. Sounds like a straw man.

There’s a difference between individual mail carriers and the organization USPS or Canadian Post. And there’s a difference between dislike and illegal. I thought we already established that, is that something you disagree on??

I understand that. I’m reading way too many laws already lol

If the letter is determined to be unlawful, there’s a provision that allows Canadian Post to not deliver the letter. It’s a whole process that the mail carriers did not follow. Maybe if they had tried, and used the argument that it was unlawful discrimination or harassment to deliver the fliers, they would have had a leg to stand on. It seems that they didn’t, they took matters into their own hands, and they were punished accordingly.

To be more clear, I’m not arguing against the punishment. Just the fliers and if they could be considered unlawful

Well I’m not too well versed on Canadian federal laws as I’m a bit further south. So I looked into discrimination laws in New Brunswick, Canada and found this Human Rights Act

Some parts that could be relevant;

The New Brunswick Human Rights Act is the provincial law that prohibits discrimination and harassment based on 16 protected grounds of discrimination.

The Act prohibits discrimination in the following five areas under the provincial jurisdiction: Employment (includes job ads and interviews, working conditions, and dismissals); Housing (e.g. rent and sale of property); Accommodations, services, and facilities (e.g. hotels, schools, restaurants, government services, libraries, stores, etc.); Publicity; and, Professional, business or trade associations (e.g. Nurses Association of New Brunswick, New Brunswick Teachers’ Association, New Brunswick College of Physicians, etc.).

Publicity includes any publications, displays, notices, signs, symbols, emblems that show discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person or class of persons

Not a lawyer or expert, but that seems to apply at least superficially. Maybe a bit of a stretch. But it helps that the fliers were full of factually wrong and hateful anti-trans myths. And freedom of speech has limits, even federally.

ETA: However, mail carriers are probably exclusively covered by federal law, and the federal Canadian Human Rights Act only seems to specify discrimination and not harassment. I do think it’s too much of a stretch to say this would be covered by any federal laws

Final edit: ok I read more. This is the closest thing I could find from the federal Human Rights Act

12 It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or (b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate

If I am misinterpreting it, please let me know. I think it could be used as an argument tho

And your ad hominem of saying Kamala was making stupid faces that pissed you off and sounded like a whiney removed confirms you have nothing intelligent/important to add either.

Sometimes it’s not an echo chamber, and you’re just wrong. Not about the spin put on the headline, just in general.

Yes, like a monkey throwing shit exposes the surrounding victims to e coli, you are exposing us to your views. Thank you brother