My sarcasm detector is showing “maybe”.
Edit: Nope. He’s for real. A quick view of post history tells the tale.
This reminds me of something my daughter – 15 now, 9 at the time – said 6 years ago. It showed up in my "On this Day " feature on FB.
“I’m not telling people what to do, I’m telling people what they need to do.” - my 9yo, after I told her to stop bossing everyone around
I just don’t fucking get it.
It’s like the breakdown of internet civility. If good people up and leave every community - meatspace on online - as soon as people get ugly and abusive, then they (the bigots) are handed a win. Every fucking time.
Since they like nominating old people with tons of experience, he’s the perfect candidate.
I’m hoping for Cory Booker. I have to read up on his skeletons. He’s a vegan. So some non-zero % of the country will think that means he only eats salad.
The Walking-Back Man.
Now I desperately want him to eat nothing but arugula in public for his entire campaign, just to wind those people up.
The election’s over. Your shitty candidate won. You can stop lying now.
Yeah no shit @Michael.Lederman. We’re not dumb. He proposed banning Muslims because he knew it would be popular with all the people who are afraid of them. He reiterated that it was a religious ban multiple times. He even said that he’d give a special exception to the Mayor of London which further underscored that it was a religious ban.
He changed his position as people pointed out it was pretty racist to something that has largely the same effect, but doesn’t sound as racist.
He’d better not be putting those lawsuits on the public dime, especially if the other side is awarded costs.
Yes, and part of the problem here is if the Supreme Court gets sufficiently fucked-up, for the rest of my life shit will still be getting broken.
You can’t demand that people stay in an online community when they are routinely abused because it lets the bullies win, even if that’s true.
And you can’t demand that people stay where their lives and wellbeings are in danger either. They can volunteer, but you cannot demand or mandate that they do so.
For the 3rd time today (and for some reason, I only find myself doing this today):
I can’t “like” this.
Of course, I would never consider doing so. But a sense of entitlement wasn’t my point, I simply think it is a counterproductive strategy which exacerbates the very problem it is in response to. So I am disturbed by its popularity.
Or, if we don’t get rid of people acting abusive, you lose good, valuable members of the community, because they no longer feel safe.
I agree, but it is a lot harder to teach tolerance in a monoculture than in a pluralistic one. Giving bigots the monoculture they demand sets terrible precedent and IMO disempowers everybody concerned. But I guess I am in the minority seeing it this way.
ETA: Perhaps I am jaded that I have never felt even remotely safe, and never expect to survive from one day to the next. That’s certainly not a good way to be.
" Trump won and that’s really all he wanted to do. He doesn’t actually care about running the country."
That is my opinion exactly!
That’s all right - I really don’t like it.
Unlike what they do now.
Are you kidding? I don’t think he has ever paid out of his own pocket for anything he didn’t have to his whole life. The public will already foot the bill for the time his lawyers tie up courts, and if he can find some other way to pay for his lawyers he will.
I think the community rules should err on the side of extra double plus safe and delete accounts that reduce safety on a “strict liability” basis. The level of discourse will improve as opinions diversify and civility is normalized.
Welcome back!
