Yeah this is unacceptable behavior. That said I think this is something that ought to be just explained to him because he might legitimately be a total dumbass.
That said I wish more restaurants were like Fuddruckers or Firehouse Subs and just let me grab my food from the counter myself once it was done. I don’t really want to pay someone to carry my food & drinks to me and be possibly insincerely nice to me to increase their tip or whatever.
What if I don’t give a flying fuck about Biden? And I find both the people dancing about his nearing demise and the people clutching their pearls about that fucking stupid? There are almost certainly more important things of substance to place your energy into.
I’m so fucking tired.
Expiration dates are useful, but they are not usually a hard end point to a food’s safety or edibility.
If your default assumption is that this event:
Did not cause an immediate “panic” reduction in insurance denials, even briefly.
Even if it did, that this happening did not save anyone’s life.
You are just coping because the idea of killing someone ending up saving lives makes you feel icky.
Even if this is just an anecdote, I find the contrary claim harder to believe.
Failing Reconstruction doomed us.
I feel like this feature is a good idea that has come too late for me. I already “group” stuff via windows. That’ll be a hard habit to break.
std::string independence;
Jokes aside, is Mastodon still tech nerd dominated in 2025? This was from 2022.
You are attributing a lot of credit to legislation in the same sentence that you concede that there was a lot of violence before and after the events that actually fully ended slavery in the US. (ignoring that I guess technically we haven’t yet if you count prison labor)
A non-violent resolution is preferable in these cases if it can be done quickly. However, a violent resolution is better than letting it continue unabated and waiting as more suffering and death happens in the mean time.
Now, if you want to argue that your non-violent methods are more effective or tactical, I’m not really going to argue against that because sometimes that actually is the case.
But the idea that violence (covert or overt) is never effective as a means of enacting change is flat out wrong.
But they are though. [breaking the law]
Sure, maybe? Besides the point though, slavery was once codified in law. Breaking the law isn’t the issue: The harm is.
Sorry for the late response, I only have access to this account at work.
Closer to virtue, but more on the practical end that it’s not a sustainable model. If you recognize terrorism an an effective political tool, where does it end? That’s a rabbit hole that should not be explored IMO, and the only form we should get anywhere close to supporting is a popular revolution, which isn’t terrorism because it’s popular, and even so it should be used incredibly rarely.
Assassination could not also be popular? Given Luigi’s popularity I’d argue that we quite literally see that is the case.
A popular revolution would be far more bloody.
Execs that break the law should be jailed, not shot.
“Breaking the law” isn’t the issue. Its making decisions for the purposes of self gain that results in social deaths. Under-insured people dying to preventable disease en mass.
That said, sure, if we could jail them that would be preferable to killing them, but I don’t think what we do to the CEO is that important in comparison to the reason Brian Thompson was killed.
As in predestination? Or as in, we’re all automatons/there’s nothing “special” about humanity?
We are all biological machines operating in a physical reality. Our will is not free from anything, our will is dictated by that physical reality. Specialness and predestination are both red herrings.
Real change comes from getting the quiet majority on the same page and energized to do something about it. A lone gunman isn’t that.
Except that Brian Thompson’s assassination is literally inspiring a large group of people on the internet to gush and post about him and there are top down censorship activities to quell it. Maybe even inspiring enough to start a popular revolution.
My hatred for this person is a thousand burning suns.
deleted by creator
Trans people seem to have a knack for hating men huh.
I’m not trans. I’m a cis male. (edit: well, mostly. TBH on a higher rational level I might as well be genderless, I’m a cis male by convenience)
Go on, try it there’ll be no tolerance for people who advocate for this levels of evil
Evil? I’m suggesting such not to punish males. Its to minimize loneliness and sadness in the world.
Trans man here to say that nobody needs to give any extra cred to MRA bullshit just because a trans person is saying it. I have also been through the full dude experience including profound loneliness. I likewise thought I was prepared but wasn’t. Its hard. I miss how things were before too.
I don’t think the author was giving credit to MRA bullshit. MRA’s seem to often hate women and I don’t think the article implies any hatred, if anything he still tries to essentially that men are the ones that need to put in the effort to push past toxic masculinity. Describing it as a problem to be fixed at the individual level rather than at systematic level. Saying "If I could advise men, it would be first to look inward. "
I also know that in general, in 2025, all people are more isolated than 20 years ago. Furthermore, it is a known phenomena for a longtime that friendships are more difficult to cultivate as an adult. I doubt how different things would have turned out for me had I not transitioned.
Suicide rates differ for a reason. It is far more painful to be a lonely man than a lonely woman. Men are very quick to self loathing.
I also know that the “distance” I now experience from women is a direct result of 20,000 years of patriarchal violence. Of course women relate to me as a potential threat; I am one. And without the presumed vulnerability I possessed as a woman, men relate accordingly. Of course.
We should have fewer male babies. It seems like it’d reduce the amount of fear and alienation in society. (I’m saying this in good faith, I’m serious.)
At some point, as a trans guy, you need to stop leaning on your experience “as a former woman” to compare your life to, especially in the negative. Being 22 is not the same as 42 no matter what your gender presentation at any point. Many people experience nostalgia for their youth.
Based on my own reading/discourse, trans women usually seem to feel very little youth nostalgia in comparison. They might complain that they’re older now, but that’s usually more of a melancholy over “what could have been” had they been AFAB.
Just as when cis guys make these complaints, I question this person’s definition of “you dont get to”. In fact the article describes him making a career out of doing so. Even specific instances of “going viral”, and the affirmative feedback he received. It seems that you do get to.
I’m pretty sure he was talking about social pressures. Sure, he got to because he was very motivated to push against that societal expectation, that doesn’t really mean that average men can get away with that unless they dedicate their whole career/life to it.
Which leads to pointing out that the whole thing is an advertisment for the author who is “a Professional Corporate Speaker and Stress Management Coach”.
I think calling it an advertisement is a stretch based only on that, but even if it was that doesn’t invalidate the point being made.
And it has anti-trans hate material suggested items in the middle of it:
I think that’s just because those are controversial yet related articles on Newsweek so their algorithm picked them. But yeah, those do seem to be especially trashy and obvious anti-trans articles. Its kind of gross that they ever ran on Newsweek to be honest…
If we condone violence as an effective means to achieve political results, we’re literally supporting terrorism, because that’s what that is:
I never said “political ends”. I was reasonably specific “fewer people dying in the long run”.
Do you take issue with terrorism because of the results (immediate deaths + chilling effects) or because it is unvirtuous? Because I don’t care about virtue at all.
I also don’t put powerful people on the same level as a regular “civilian”. When you take on a powerful position and then proceed to abuse the position so thoroughly that you cause mass deaths you might as well be a military general. In Trump’s case, he’s now literally the commander in chief of the US military.
I also want to point out that I don’t even believe in free will and my ethical frame work here isn’t that I simply want to “take out the trash” or seek vengeance. On a purely rational level I want the harm to stop, not to make Trump or Brian Thompson suffer or die. If there is a reasonable means to achieving that without killing them I would be in favor. But failing to find a pacifistic alternative I actually would say it is an ethical failure not to.
I’m autistic, I’ve used autist when I’m being mildly self depreciating, but also when I wasn’t. It really depends on context & intent. If its being said verbally, your tone also matters.
Not condoning violence against a fascist is rolling over and letting them get away with fascist shit. I take it you think Brian Thompson deserves sympathy as well?
Regardless of whether Kyle Gass is doing fine, it still reveals either a weak character on Jack Black’s part or significant ideological disagreement with my own beliefs. To an extent that I find him much less appealing as an actor or performer.
If violence against a corporate ghoul, fascist, or nazi saves more lives in the long run, it is 100% justified. If Crooks had not missed we’d be living in a much better world right now and far fewer people would be in serious danger.
I’m still sore about Jack Black being a coward and throwing Kyle Gass under the bus so IDK how much that would help with my enjoyment.
He was being a bad person the moment he thought “I hope she gets abused by her boyfriend.” No need to do research on the guy after that point.
That said, he’d only saying that because hes incredibly close to being depressed and in extreme self loathing in response to being rejected and trying to protect his his will to live via delusional projection and lashing out. “She’s the one with a problem not me. I’m great. She’s a piece of shit and deserves to suffer.”
People who don’t delude themselves about how great they are unfortunately usually don’t respond to rejection with “I need to improve myself” or “I’m just not his/her type I’ll find someone.” but with “I should kill myself, its hopeless. I’ll be romantically alone forever and I can’t take it.” and the sheer mortal terror of potentially thinking that way causes the delusional insulation and projection.