maybe they are worried about copyright claims from the Japanese/distribution platforms.
the thing is that this isn't a moral question but a legal one. And there are enough points against this fellow than worrying about it happening to citizens is a non starter and to me just a sign of virtue signalling.
When the right identifies with orcs it's usually about behaving exactly like the orcs do against the Others.
I don't think normal people identify with orcs so much as act like orcs due to being a Role Playing Game.
When the left identifies with orcs it's usually about the orcs being less evil than they are pictured.
but first they have to see themselves and their client minorities in the brutish war like Orcs, and THEN comes the new editions with Orcs no different than mexicans without a dental plan.
to add to what SteveKirk already said that I agree 100% with, I would consider the poor smuck on twitter that was sounding the alarm about the poor messaging for men days before the election, for which he was dragged by his own side (can't remember his handle, but he had his 15 min of fame), as a more valuable signal than the Ezra Klein or Matthew Yglesias of the world.
I get the feeling that a lot of these people wanted to speak up more loudly sooner, but it was only once progressives were properly on the back foot that they felt empowered to do so.
that sounds like cowardice, that they were unwilling to breach the party line, up until the catastrophe befell them and everyone was scrambling, like a chicken with its head cut off, asking what happened. Personally I would look for the lefties that didn't care to be excommunicated from the party and searched for the truth. After all, what good is a yes man?.
Well, of course it's better to be with your biological parents in the mayority of cases. But the point I was making is that if it isn't possible for the child to be with them, there are other options.
I personally are fine with anti-conservatives content IF it is something true or reasonable. But more often than not the post is a thinly veiled screech and the poster is Darwin's clone #346322 with no intention of engaging in good faith. This last tactic of deleting top level comments is just anoying, I didn't even know what the 2 deleted posts were about, just something Trump related; which is the reason for my question (plea).
I don't think no one who does that is really looking to engage in good faith.
“Honestly, I think you are going to have to let go a little bit or she might go crazy after she gets out yalls house. All of her behavior was appropriate for a 17 year old. I was doing these things at 17. Almost all of my high school and the high school down the road were doing these things. And worse…. The way you go forwards is going to determine whether you are in her adult life.”
There’s a significant attitude of “Teens are going to engage in risky behaviors no matter what, your punishments and restrictions will have zero deterrent effect, and the best course of action is some kind of harm reduction.”
I'm more of the opinion that it is preferable to not be in their life when they aren't your responsibility anymore, than being present in their funeral when they still are. That sub sounds like a bunch of childless kidults with a "hello, fellow kids" attitude.
If the choice is a 5-10 year wait or hop the fence, I don’t think you can act shocked when a lot of people jump the fence.
there are people that have no path to inmigrate legaly to the US, be that a 5-10 year wait list or 2 weeks, and that their only way forward is through fence hopping. Think gang members, non-skilled people, minors, etc. the only way to stop them is going to be enforcing the border one way or another.
It's a genuine problem: a citizen can't be deported, but what if the citizen is a minor (a very young minor as in this case)? With no closer legal family members than a possible aunt by marriage?
I would assume in that case the foster system is the place to put them
If it was the same energy I would have been slapped too. I gave an example of what is more probable to happen in the hipotethical of 40% muslim country using past behavior, you just snarkily took what I said and twisted it into the less charitable way possible.
As for your your snark, it's not necessary for every Hispanic to be a Latin Kings member, they just need some members in the neighborhood. That is how territory works with gangs.
in my opinion The right wing gets free speech and all it entails, and the left wing freeze peach and all it entails. That means I'm judging them based on their own standards without any hypocrisy involved and I get to keep my moral high ground, thank you very much.
Last I heard about it, the poor performance is due to the Original engine to the game still being in the background and using the UE 5 for the updating of graphics and what not.
Are you in favor of the Bare Links Repository?
I would like a breakdown too. Like you, I followed him briefly for book recommendations, but stopped due to the constant LGBT stuff.
I don’t recall anything that could be considered a mistake from her.
she laughably refers several times to project 2025 in connection to Trump and repeats the debunked "fine people on both sides" story.
I think a good way to avoid that trojan horse scenario would be to only permit entry to high achieving people from that region of the world as I would assume they are more likely to follow medical advice.
sorry about that, it was two top level posts from upsidedownmotter, the second one I tought was from another user. Thanks again for your (and the rest of the mod team, even if I sometimes not see eye to eye with amadan) work.
The whole point of the suit is that the process by which Musk's award amount was reached was biased in his favor, not a neutral process.
This isn't true, as the NYT puts it, the targets were a "series of jaw-dropping milestones" or "laughably impossible". It's biased in Musk's favor in the fevered mind of that stock pauper, but the lawsuit and subsequent rulings are just political activism fueled by anti-Musk animus.
EDIT.- I'm going to go one over and affirm that the only people that are against the pay package are political activists like the plaintiff and the judge or people that don't know the details of the package and are just following what their peers are telling them to believe. That is how good of a freaking deal it was to the shareholders.
if you couldn't stop the bully when you pleaded with him, what makes you think that finger wagging at the the victim will stop her from retaliating?
Say you have a net-value job worth net-1, standard benefit to the economy. Even if the remittance-migrant taking the job lowers the net benefit to net-0.5, the person who the migrant-taking-the-job affects (displaces) has to go from a net-1 job to a sub net-0.5 to provide a worse net effect... as opposed to a worse-paying net-0.8 job (new net gain of 1.3 versus 1), or an-even-better net-1.1 job enabled by the migrant (now net 1.6).
that entire paragraph sounds to me like there is an assumption of infinite jobs up for the taking, something that is not true. The displaced 25 years old coder has to work in McDonalds now that they were replaced from their job by a HB-1 and thus a teenager than in other circumstances would have occupied that position spends the rest of his time playing videogames. How do you square that?
EDIT.-
- What migrants send back home represents only 15 per cent of what they earn On average, migrant workers send between US$200 and $300 home every one or two months. Contrary maybe to popular belief, this represents only 15 per cent of what they earn: the rest –85 per cent – stays in the countries where they actually earn the money, and is re-ingested into the local economy, or saved.
checking your source one problem I see is that their source looks to be themselves and isn't available to peruse and the last bit of "is re-ingested into the local economy, or saved." what they fail to say is that the saved wealth goes with the migrant worker to his country of origin when he leaves, be it permanently or during vacations.
it's principal agent problem all the way to the top. The mistake often done in these kinds of discussions is assuming that the news reporter or the editor and journalist in the news room cares about the bottom line of the corporation. The only ones that do are the CEO and the bean counters in the finance room; everyone else cares about other things (ideology) as it isn't their job to make sure their business is profitable enough to make payroll.
even if you ding me when I get too out of line I appreciate your efforts Amadan.
I just didn't really see what's worth engaging with in your comment, I read it at the time as a lazy equivocation of latinos with gang members.
Independently of whatever you took my comment to mean or how effortful you thought it was, if you want to snark there is X for that. Here you will attract the mod's notice if you don't follow the rules.
Putting in a tad more effort: So, some gang members protected their neighborhood from looters, that's fine. But I'm not sure why it suggests that latinos as a demographic would be any more willing to live under an islamic theocracy than anyone else. If anything the example shows the opposite, they stood up for themselves and their neighborhood.
It's not that they would be willing to live under them, what I think would happen is a period of Balkanization in this hypothetic 40% muslim country with the Muslim population beginning in general to try to impose their norms now that they are approaching mayority in the country (like they did in Hamtramck, Michigan), and the other minorities (latinos, blacks, etc) consolidating territories (their neighborhoods and ghettos) where they resist the impositions.
The only ones caught with their pants down in this situation is the white lefties.
can you give us some names, please?
More options
Context Copy link