Demut

Ah, another boycott, eh, let's see how this one turns out. Not what I did and nor what I actually said. Besides, this was resolved by SFLUFAN. Hard to abide by rules that aren't mentioned anywhere on this forum but he told me the gist of it now so calm your tits.

Give the guy some credit, he'd still manage at least a moderate trot.

Thanks for moving/merging this, @Commissar SFLUFAN or whoever did it

Finally something progressives and white supremacists can agree on: Fewer African-Americans and Natives on the packaging of their products!

My my, yet another mindreader amongst our midst! I concur with your recommendation though: Don't respond to me if you don't have anything of value to add. Good advice, I just wish you adhered to it yourself a bit more often.

I mean ... that's how he won last time. Didn't see a thread about this interview from yesterday. Maybe not exactly surprising but still a bit ... odd coming from the guy who campaigned on being a "transitional president" and said Guess their time just hasn't come yet, hm? Well, maybe towards the end of this decade then, I suppose. Unless there's still another geriatric "transitional president" that has to show the kids how it's done first before it's their turn.

Producers of 'Rust' fined $100,000 for safety breaches WWW.DW.COM The producers of the movie have been fined for "serious" safety breaches, which led to the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins last year. Actor Alec Baldwin has been charged with involuntary manslaughter. I guess this doesn't come as that much of a surprise anymore after the previous lawsuit already showed the way this all is probably gonna go ...

Joe Biden intends to seek a second term as US president WWW.DW.COM The president says he plans to seek reelection in 2024 but is not ready for a full-blown campaign yet. Should he serve a second term, Biden would be 86 by the time he leaves office. HUH. Really? Well, this'll be interesting.

Sorry, Shader, it just didn't happen to be up top in the Unread Content list for me before I'll promise to try to be faster for you from now on Political grandstanding, I imagine, to signal to their electorate (by pretending to be doing something without actually doing something). Why was that anti-lynching bill passed some time back necessary even though it was obviously already illegal to begin with? Same reason, different topic. I hadn't considered that but yeah, we'll see.

I'm not saying it would be perfect, Xbob, just one possible way to arrive at a more objective, quantifiable answer to the question of how much of an impact it had. And regarding polls and people not answering, there's an entire science around that so with enough resources I think we could arrive at quality data in theory

Then I suppose you'd be a lot denser than I am and also way more repulsive.

Who said that I said that you were referring to me at all?

Oh, cool, apparently Shader's a telepath now, too. That lad astonishes me every day anew. Just pointing out the flaws in the argument in the article. If the rebuttal is "Well, they'll simply ignore existing law and interpret it however they want" then they could already do so even without this amendment. Reminds me of all the hysteria surrounding bill C-16 in Canada. Wake me up once something actually happens on the basis of it IRL.

If you made it with fortified plant milk, apparently it actually would be

All law ultimately is but I get your point. However, there's already vague enough "crimes" that they can use for that (e.g. "creating a public disturbance") and the paragraph the bill refers to (§ 39-17-901) does further define what exactly counts as "harmful to minors". Of course they can ignore what is listed there as prerequisites for it to count as such but then again, they can ignore any law if they so choose and no one holds them to account for it. Especially relevant seems this part: "(C) Taken as whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific values for minors;" Seems to me normal gay parades would be excluded from counting as adult-oriented entertainment on that basis.

^Well, there is this (tab 'Gender Identity'). (doing it this way now since that's apparently not actually an image but an interactive element)

Hey, I'm just asking questions though. That sounds unhealthy. But you did say mere hours ago how you could solve this ''''''problem'''''' by making use of the ignore function and blocking me. I mean that is what it's there for, right? At this point you're doing this to yourself, it feels like. Also, no, I'm not infesting* every board but the sports one, I don't post in the tabletop board either *Please seriously reconsider using such dehumanizing language, xoxo.

I mean maybe that's just me being ESL but your original sentence sounded to me like you did so on more than one occasion. Is that false? Anyway, that added context you just provided would've clarified all that.

Ah, that makes so much more sense. My bad. Still, same question: Why would your aunt want you to talk about her former pedophile child rapist pastor? Is that kind of topic something you think people enjoy discussing? Seems perfectly natural to me that she dislikes you bringing it up.

So this is the actual text of the bill, right? Maybe I'm missing something but how does that ban drag shows let alone constitute "a malicious attempt to remove LGBTQ people from public life" (as the quoted group in the article claims)? Now I'm no lawyer but I fail to understand the author's reasoning in the article concerning how this would criminalize gay parades for example, especially when you look up the crucial paragraph referenced in the very beginning. It's not just any and all "male or female impersonators" out and about in public that would violate this law from what I'm reading there. I also don't understand what's vague about it in context (i.e. within the rest of the law that this bill amends). On a side note, why is seemingly every other thing a felony in the U.S. (low level or not)? Huh, so a woman who found out that her husband is a pedophile and child rapist and subsequently reported him to the police doesn't like you bringing that up with her? How unusual. You'd think she'd enjoy talking about that fond memory of this lovely human all day long.

With all of this, I wonder what impact, if at all, the war will have on the actual content of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 aside from the obvious things like honoring the devs that stayed and fought. Probably not much either way since they were already fairly advanced in the development cycle when it started, from what I recall, but maybe some minor mention of or reference to it will be made. The game did take place a bit in the future, right? Released IRL in 2007, with in-game date being 2012 or something.

As a result of developing testicular cancer from chugging down all that 4-methylimidazole (a carcinogen and byproduct of the caramel coloring they use) ?

Yup. Maybe read the actual report. By the way, we should probably clarify where (if at all) we disagree. What "clear link to R*ssia" do you see between them and Donald Trump (and not, for example, the grifters that attached themselves to him for personal enrichment)? And what exactly is your gripe with the NYT quoting the FBI in that 2016 article you linked to? I mean we both are at least on the same page regarding the original fairy tale of "Trump himself is a R*ssian asset, bought and paid for by Putin, and basically acted as his puppet in the White House" being complete fiction, right?

I'm not actually sure this is the last one I watched per se but it's definitely the last one I saw in a cinema: Medieval (2022) This film is loosely based on the early life of the undefeated Czech general and national hero Jan Žižka. As the leader of a small band of mercenaries he is tasked with a mission that will impact the whole kingdom and throw him in the midst of a great power struggle. The film has some exceptional fight sequences and decent cinematography and such overall but it lacks a certain ... je ne sais quoi. The story is also engaging enough at first but meanders a bit towards the latter part. Overall, it's worth a watch, 3/5, I guess. I'd definitely be interested in a sequel by the same team about his later years, however. Alas, since it seems that the movie fucking bombed both critically and financially, this might not ever come about.

I'm not even sure why China would want to supply R*ssia with arms or ammo in the first place. Anyone with two eyes can see where this is going and reportedly Xi wasn't exactly happy with Pootin about his lil' "Very Special Military Operation" to begin with. They, like India, are happy to take advantage of them in the meantime by buying below-market price oil and in turn not openly condemning them. But beyond that? Why risk secondary sanctions for violating the ones in place against R*ssia? China already received a shot across their bow from the U.S. not that long ago when it came to that whole chip manufacturing affair. I'm not sure they're in the mood for even more adversity right now after the COVID shitshow. Trade with Europe and North America is their lifeblood and presumably worth far more than their comparatively insignificant economic ties to and partially shared geopolitical interests with R*ssia. At least from what I've read they'd rather this all be over and done with so that a "return to status quo" can begin. Stringing R*ssia along would do the exact opposite.