I see preventing the horrendous and profound (to say nothing of violating the Fourth Amendment in a big way) crime of genocide, a crime so vast it takes a whole society to commit, as of more importance than fretting over suicides. These continue to chug along at the unvarying rate of circa 40K annually by every means. Not to detract from the tragedy, but of higher priority is making this crime of civilizations a *former* crime of civilizations, like witch burnings.

Do nothing, therefore, to diss armed civil rights. That is, don't act like the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

enbie = non-binary, n.b.

Basically the libertarians of gender.

Thanks.

I seem to disagree with you on everything except firearms.

Obama gets his punishment from the media for weighing in on the wrong side (paywalled, do not click)

PW; DR: Obama is now a c*nservative. Because that's how this works. Next year, he'll be determined to be a racist.

You disagree with us, we label you. That's how it is. Good luck everybody!

Have a WaPo subscription; Did click.

The article seems, in my opinion, to be neutral-to-positive on Obama's legacy, and well-documented, policy-wise. It's not punishing him at all--and Obama was largely a centrist with several traditionally-conservative views. It's why I liked him. I actually expected the article to be a documentation of someone else's furor over Obama's comments, but it wasn't even that.

All this railing against the people who rail feels very "doth protest too much," you know?

If you do happen to click, you'll find that it's saying that Republicans historically used to be a lot more liberal, and Obama in may ways is to the right of them. Partially his views, and partially due to his futile efforts at being bipartisan with today's Republicans.

My apologies if I misinterpreted the headline

... hopefully all those other people who also see the headline and can't/won't read the article will not similarly misinterpret it

And really, you don't disagree with me all that much. Killing tools are how you hold and keep your rights. A free society contains both killing tools and people who use them to righteous ends. For one instance, against the unrighteous using them to unrighteous ends.

I can understand and appreciate this elementary thing. Being as it's elementary, I reckon it the basis of everything else.

Jesus Christ did not have the gun-control mentality: "Let him who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one." The precise opposite. You may get goose bumps and follow Jesus, no turning back, no turning back.

From The Nib

And the surprise is...?

If you're annoyed with some venue shutting you down, you go leak about them someplace else; it's only natural. Puts their institutional scrotum in a docking-rubber for thinking free speech and freedom of conscience should be costly.

Such people are in for a pummeling at the hands of the freethinkers.

Cheap shot: Antifa... might that be read as Anti First Amendment...?

I was reading the NYTs Candidate interviews and this popped up.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...interview.html

(formatting my fault)

Aisha Harris: Back in September, you actually spoke out on behalf of the comedian Shane Gillis, who had been hired on “SNL” and then was quickly fired after some racist comments were stirred up that he had made in the past on one of his podcasts. And you said you didn’t want to be judged for something you had done 25 years ago.

Mr. Gillis was hired by “Saturday Night Live” last September, then dropped days later after clips surfaced showing him using slurs and language offensive toward Asian and L.G.B.T.Q. people, including one specifically about Mr. Yang. Mr. Yang later said the comedian should have had the chance to keep his job and explained: “As a society, we have become unduly punitive and vindictive about people making statements that some find offensive or distasteful.”

But Gillis’s comments were maybe a year ago. So I’m curious as to, in your mind, how long of a period of time should it be before someone faces some sort of consequences for something they’ve done in the past?

So when I heard that Shane Gillis had called me “Jew chink” — I think was the slur — my reaction was the same reaction anyone would have, which was like, who the heck is this guy, and he sounds like a total jackass. Well, my wife actually had heard about it independently and was also like, “Who the heck is this guy?” And so then I sat down and started to figure out who Shane Gillis was, what he did for a living, and then I sat down and watched some of his comedy to try and get some context.

After watching his comedy, I felt that he wasn’t a malignant racist and that his slur toward me was just very, very bad comedy run amok. Which did not strike me as a fireable offense, and I realized that if I was the individual who was actually directly slurred, and I did not feel that he should lose his job over it, then I should probably share that sentiment with other people.

Particularly because I think we’ve become unduly vindictive and punitive toward statements that people find objectionable. A friend of mine said something, he said, “If the online universe descends on someone, and they lose their job, the online universe moves on a week later, but that person still does not have a job a week later.” That the impact on the individual lasts much, much longer than the rancor. So I shared this.

Eww strawberries, how can you eat them?
Ever had a strawberry?
No.
Try one.
Hey, these are pretty good, I want more.
No, you said you didn't like them, so you can never have any... ever.

Boom. This, right there.