If I own you as an object your entire life and have sex with you, that's rape. I have taken away your autonomy and choice in the most visceral of fashions. If you don't want to be accused of rape, don't own people as objects and fuck them.
Amazing that on this site of all sites, someone is lauding "the next best thing to freedom". With that logic, surely you shouldn't care about a few choice amendments going away, right? After all, it's still better than nothing, right? You can't both say the promise of freedom is an inherent right/removing the 2nd amendment would destroy your freedoms, and that being owned by someone else who can decide to fuck you whenever they want is good enough.
Unless "the next best thing to freedom" ISN'T the same as good enough. If that's the case, then no reason to cape for human trafficking that's not as evil as it could be if it really tried. That's just weird. Liberals always get this wrong, so it's hilarious to see someone here make the same mistake - better is not the same as good enough.
By showing footage of him at a Trump rally?? Pretty obvious really. There will be plenty of pictures, just not these ones. Maybe bottom left.
Golden parachutes aren't just for banking execs
Imagine putting up $44000000000 to buy a single website, and months later, your best way of enacting change on said website is still salty memes
Money truly can't buy you happiness.
Jefferson did not give up all his slaves on his death. Also, there is nothing noble in waiting until you are dead to do something good. It's better than nothing, but come on.
Yes, of course Jefferson wrote about slavery being evil - most of them did, because it was. He still owned humans as objects and raped them. Some would say being aware of your sins and still committing them is what makes a person evil. I think it's a more common human fallibility than that, but it certainly isn't good.
You could call a man who wrote more passionately and eloquently about freedom and the inherent right to self-determination than most before or since, while also daily intentionally robbing others of said rights and holding up a system that would do the same to thousands of people a complicated man. Or you could call him an asshole and move on.
You can like the Declaration of Independence while also not letting off the hook its amalgamater (whole sections are just reworded Madison stuff, Jefferson's skills lied less in blank canvas creation and more in synthesis [not a value judgement]. Separating a creator from their creation goes both ways. An asshole creator doesn't make a good movie bad, and you can like a good thing while admitting a terrible person made it. Humanity and history is complicated, and we will be better the less we force things into boxes that won't fit.
Good things can be made by bad people, evil can be born from good, and we should stop imbuing the connection between (lowercase) creator and creation with so much significance, since it is severed once the creation is shared with an audience.
I'll agree with you on scarier/worse. But which is funnier? Scientology centers all having a replica of L Ron Hubbard's office maintained exclusively for his use when he rematerializes? Or Mormon magic underwear/personal planet? Okay, Jesus leaving the apostles after his resurrection and instead of ascending to be at the right hand, going to Missouri and chilling with the Cherokee is also pretty funny. But then again, Scientology's scripture does contain the phrase "The clam is a deadly incident", which I can't stop chuckling at.
Most of these will not actually get under their skin. I'm sorry, but they just won't. If you're actually looking to not just start a heated argument, but actually make them pause and guaranteed put them on the awkward, unsure defensive from jump, you only need one:
Isn't it weird how in Hamilton, only Thomas Jefferson owns slaves, and Hamilton's lifelong practice of buying, selling, and renting slaves is completely absent [even from the cut song that would have mentioned how Washington owned slaves]?
Liberals fucking love their Hamilton and cannot conceive of it being racist. Don't say it's racist because it puts non-white actors in white roles, that will only lead to an argument that goes nowhere and exhausts everyone else. Surprise them instead.
Bonus follow-ups: Isn't it shitty to reduce Jefferson's most famous rape victim to a silent chorus role - along with every other slave in the musical? Doesn't the musical kind of imply that the best black people in America can aspire to is cosplaying human traffickers, telling their story, instead of singing their own?
[The musical literally implies that Hamilton is an abolitionist in one scene, and then just a couple scenes later he dances with his wife who is wearing a big beautiful dress which in reality was placed on her by slaves. The musical lists multiple things he bought and sold as a kid manning a trading post - humans are not one of them. Brought to you by Disney.]
Maybe because calling something Independence Day that doesn't actually occur on a date independence was won seems weird? And Declaration of Independence Day is too long? Also, American culture has since the Civil War in general moved TJ out of the spotlight in favor of more "neutral" military victors like Washington and Lincoln. This is due to a host of cultural factors that don't evenly fall on to one side of the culture wars, because most things are more complicated than that.
(but if you're asking me, which admittedly you aren't, the main benefit to the Powers That Be is the very liberal idea of rewriting history to pin the evils of slavery on one founder - a sort of historical queen's sacrifice, if you will. Keeping Washington and Lincoln as pure as possible is very important, because they are both first presidents in a way, and both won that status through military victory. Keeping civilians associating the military with neutrality and the practice of voting is necessary to creating a world where liberals are easily bullied into accepting, and then actively supporting the management of, the invasion of Iraq - liberals who then howl doomsday because they are truly convinced that Trump will involve us in unnecessary war)
"OTHER THAN BEING OWNED BY SCIENTOLOGY I THINK HE'S HIS OWN MAN"
Scientologists are honestly probably patriots, because many countries would simply not allow them to exist. China woulda no-so-secret prison'd them immediately, and the Vatican would not allow someone to copy their business model so shamelessly on their home turf. Scientology owes the 1st Amendment a lot.
We all knew the SoundCloud rappers would one day rise up
Yes, but your solution cannot be monetized or used to track customer data. And again, I don't have your problem in Chrome, with millions of dollars and multiple non-white people behind it. If you're using a Christian app made by a smaller team, just let them know, it could be an oversight and a quick fix.
The Treaty of 1868 promised this land to the Sioux as long as the buffalo numbers stayed high. Gold was found in the hills, prospectors arrived, and the buffalo population dramatically decreased. Now what was once the holy site Six Grandfathers contains the face of the man who signed the largest mass execution in American history. Interestingly, two acquitted men were among the Dakota 38, including a white man who had been adopted by the Lakota Sioux as a boy. What a wild life story that guy had.
Luv 2 own people as objects
Some of these might pose some awkward pauses for liberals, but after dinner they are more likely to ask a lefter friend than ask you. And leftism has answers to these questions that liberalism can't provide. So I'd be careful when playing with fire.
Well, then it sounds like a problem with Brave. Because I am not having the issue you have in Chrome on mobile. These edge cases can often slip by a small team, they would probably appreciate a support ticket.
And yes, the problem is that web code was standardized a long time ago when screens were all horizontal and weighed 10 pounds. Most mobile browsers are forks and not built from the ground-up. Eventually AI will be embedded in all corporate browsers that can "smart" rearrange the HTML to look perfect on any screen, as well as algorithmically serving you ads and tracking you.
Three dots. Scroll down. "Request Desktop Site" or something similar. FWIW, code blocks wrap correctly on Chrome mobile
All those Atlantic "Putin didn't know what he was getting himself into!" articles really seemed unwise, from a narrative point of view of nothing else
Actually, no. I'm talking about liberals. Y'all have to stop confusing liberals with communists and actual leftists. Leftists are also sharing the exact same OP image in their Facebook groups and Tumblr circles. They hate the American military-industrial complex that quashed, knocked over, and besieged so many revolutionary states. Liberals are not sharing such images, they're the ones Blue/Yellow washing all their social media.
Leftists are more appropriately described as bound by hate, a hatred of a system they think holds them and 99% of other people down. Liberals are bound by a desire to be proven morally correct and the true patriots. Leftists want to destroy the machine, and some of those leftists want to make a new one. Liberals want to be proven and coronated as the best caretakers of the machine and have the machine say that it is very proud of them and of course the machine won't miss your dance recital - unlike your real dad.
Dude's not getting bailed out. But keep being wrong and also caping for the removal of "innocent until proven guilty". That has never broken bad for anyone ever. SMH
Also, he's not Antifa, he's a troll. The media is going to make a big deal out of his posts showing him at Trump events, and they might even start calling him a Trumper. That is clearly not the case, but he is also clearly not Antifa. Don't make the same mistake the media will and see meaning when there is none. He's a nihilist troll who lives to provoke, and assigning political motives misses the point.
Any political manifesto he does have or make will inevitably be contradictory garbage that sounds like it came from a fractured, diseased mind, because it did.
It's wild how y'all talk about how terrible life is in America now, and don't really allow for "solipsism as a reaction to the bounds being placed on the American dream" as a reasonable explanation for why people would do bad things.
Yes, a world in which every bad thing is the result of bad people doing a bad plan would be more interesting and comforting, but we live in a chaotic uncaring universe. We live in a country with basically two communities - Christianity and Meatspace Tumblr - and if you aren't part of either, which seemed to be the case for this guy, you can feel extremely alone in a crowded and increasingly uncomfortable country.
There is no longer a supermajority culture in America that agrees on what America means and how to best be a shining city on a hill. Without that, community is hard to come by, and community (along with sweat) is what makes us human and allowed us to become the dominant force in the most competitive biome on the planet, and then the planet itself. Without community, bad things happen to the human psyche. Even if Soros wants and profits from this, he and his ilk don't need to make things like this happen.
This just happens in America.
It's almost like there's a connection between the American military-industrial complex and the economy
The (not-so) secret desire of liberals is to have been the true patriots all along, actually
Your logic presupposes that cops being in schools would be effective in stopping school shootings. But also that these same cops, who were at a school, were told not to interfere and were okay with that. Why then do you think "cops in schools" is the battle line, if your enemy already controls the cops? If your enemy can make the cops ineffectual, why would you think cops in schools would be any benefit, if they can just be deactivated at any time?
Moreover, why would your enemy care about limiting your access to guns when they already own the supply - and the world's largest military, complete with enough drones to make a beehive jealous? Do you really think an AR-15 or any other commercially available gun will protect you if the US Government wants you dead (or more likely, just wants your property and really couldn't care less if you live or die)?
And if commercially available hardware WON'T protect you from the tyranny of government with access to modern military technology - then does your enemy actually want to limit your access to what is already commercially available? Or are you being distracted with arguments over different sizes and amounts of sticks while your enemy has all the swords? And if so, what are you being distracted FROM?
"No maid I seen like the brown cailín that I met at the County Down"
There is no true Bible - it's a matter of faith