staysafeanon
Oh, so you have nothing. Thanks for agreeing with me. Your points dismissed.
>The original claim was that the total number of people still offended by COVID-victim Joe Rogan's comments was "none."
Not my nor your claim. Stop shifting goal posts.
>I've posted evidence to support mine
Wrong, you've posted none such thing, as I have proven above. You still haven't supplied evidence to support your claim.
>your defense is a thought-terminating cliché coined by a game show host.
Yellow journalism predates the birth of Trump, wrong again.
And as usual, you're wrong. You still haven't linked any study or non-yellow journalism that tries to objectively capture how "many" people are still mad at Joe Rogan.
>I provided a few links because you're apparently unable to use search engines.
A few links to fake news outposts that did not support your claim whatsoever. If you can't find a legitimate claim to your original statement, it can be dismissed outright. You still haven't found anything, and so you're claims are dismissed.
You seriously reply with two more links to yellow journalism. I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but that's three strikes, you're out.
It's not at all. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Not any more or less than any other form of power generation, no.
> Is the world becoming more or less stable?
Definitely more stable. This is the safest, most crime free/stable the world has ever been.
I can hear leftists screeching from here over this proposal. That's exactly what Republicans want... Now student IDs can't be issued to illegal immigrants, need the same verifications required for DLs, which is White supremacy or something.
> school in most cases already knows this information because they need it to verify the tuition rate for which a student qualifies.
Which is hilariously inaccurate. I knew many students who feigned residency to save themselves tens of thousands.
>But GOP-run state legislatures didn’t do this and the reason why seems obvious given the public intonations coming from these individuals.
Because it was shot down by Democrats. Republicans just want to bring the US to the 21st century and match what the rest of the first-world countries are doing. Anything else is regressive.
Nonetheless, as far as Texas is concerned, students can get a free voter ID that qualifies, so the student ID point is moot.
Sadly, the employee that leaked/whistleblew is suffering from a mental illness, and they delusionally thought their coworkers were farting on the burgers.
You're correct, there's no bias on the system for background checks. Anyone of any race, color, or creed can get a background check to verify their eligibility to exercise their right to own/carry firearms and vote.
I agree, and it's in Texas' state law: any legal resident regardless of race, color, or creed can apply for a concealed carry license. It's truly bias free.
Except student IDs don't even do that. They prove your student status, not state resident identity. That's why you can't use student IDs to buy alcohol, board a plane, or purchase a firearm. Voting and buying guns are both constitutionally guaranteed rights. Are you OK with people buying guns with student IDs? If you are, at least you're being consistent.
Many student IDs are not even issued by the states (private schools). Also, there are hundreds of schools per state, being a student at Piney Woods Community College isn't easily verifiable if it's even in the state.
>The comment upthread I initially replied to stated student IDs aren't appropriate because they don't demonstrate citizenship
Nor do they demonstrate residency, nor are they valid for a number of other rights and privileges so it holds that they're not accepted.
>I pointed out neither does a drivers' license.
Which is true, but not what I stated above.
>The appropriate time to look at residency/citizenship is at the voter registration step. This is already done!
Some states have same day registration so it is not already done. Nonetheless, a student ID is a poor ID for exercising a person's right to vote.
That's not what that says. Students can proclaim residency in the state they are attending school, yes. That also means in Texas you have 30 days to register your car, 90 days to change over to a Texas driver's license, etc.
>Neither a school ID nor a drivers’ license says anything about citizenship. They’re the same in that regard.
We're not talking about citizenship, we're talking about residency. A student ID does not prove state residency, so it does not past muster whatsoever. Texas has legal explanation covering this specific scenario: https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/elo/gsc1.pdf
I'll state it again: a student ID does not prove residency.
You fell for fake news. A Texas concealed handgun license is not a "gun club membership", it's an official state photo ID that requires a background check, fingerprinting, and an 8 hour course to obtain.
A driver's license proves state residency (one of the requirements needed to vote), a student ID does not.
Ugh... I see you overlooked the small fact that the Japanese occupation of the Korean peninsula happened before the Korean War...
"After all, the South was by all standards a failed state after the Korean war (1950-53). GDP per capita in South Korea in early 1960’s was below $100. Lower than Haiti, Ethiopia or Yemen, making South Korea one of the poorest countries in the world. Infrastructure built during the Japanese occupation (1910-1945) was destroyed during the war. All of Korea’s natural resources remained in the North, as well as its industrial facilities. The first years of independence, under the presidency of Rhee Syng-man, brought no economic development and kept South Korea afloat only due to foreign aid." [0]
>“Capitalism” being called as a reason for success sort of also implies that there is something strong and special about Koreans in that they can make it work
There may be something strong and special about Koreans, but one half went capitalist, the other half went Communist/Socialist. The proof is in the pudding.
>where there are countless other examples of capitalistic societies leading to massive corruption
Being capitalist is immaterial to being corrupt.
South Korea is on a capitalist upswing, not decline. People forget that South Korea was worse off than most of Africa after the Korean War. Capitalism and democracy is what saved them.
Look at their brother to the North if you want to see a real decline.
Nah, that's what facts and being a data driven adult have told us. Apparently they line up with the far-right. Looks like reality had a right bias.
>You're told to believe that Group X is bad, and when you find that you actually believe in the core tenet of Group X, you have trouble reconciling that.
Except Group X is bad, and sharing common beliefs is immaterial. Hitler/Nazis believed smoking was bad for you and excessive drinking was a blight on society. I agree with them on that, but there's obviously no issues reconciling the fact that they were bad.
>You want black lives matter supporters who don't actually fight for change.
If they wanted that, they'd be OK with all the neurotic performative virtue signaling at work LOL!
>In short, you love the status quo, and you're scared that giving marginalised groups a better shake might take away some of what you have.
In short, you believe "you're either with us, or against us." Facts, nuance, and logically considering problems are systemic White supremacy culture in your eyes.
>you're scared that giving marginalised groups a better shake might take away some of what you have.
He supports egalitarianism which definitely helps marginalized groups along with everyone else. You're supporting institutional racism.
The Leftist's Exit Fallacy: claim the response is in bad faith because you cannot reasonably respond to the core claims, and do not have any retorts to the analogies, metaphors, etc. used.
>Saying people deserve to be able to live isn't the same as introducing extremely "othering" religions.
The fact that I can't tell if you're talking about leftism or Christianity is hilarious, and telling.
>The tactics are the same, the goals are different.
That's literally what he was highlighting here...
>Comparing these is bad faith.
"I have no response to your well thought out arguments, so I'm just going to disregard them entirely because the narrative must be preserved!"
Now, I'm thousands of inches away from Silicon Valley, in a much larger town than most posters here. But I think this kind of thinking is toxic wherever you work. If you push out anyone who might challenge the structure (formal or informal) of your company without taking a good look at who that structure is serving, you're going to reject a lot of good people. And you're going to reinforce any existing biases already in the company.
No they weren't. They literally asked what the mission was. I replied with the primary source. Asked and answered.
>and neither that article or your explanation of it added more depth than the Twitter thread alone did.
Yes they did. It literally outlined the mission and the scope. It provided everything required to answer the GP's question.
"Be careful to not allow facts, social psychology, and science based approaches get in the way of the narrative! We can't have any conservative view points around, regardless of how correct they are! The spooky alt-right fascism is just around the corner if you don't delude yourself like a good leftist!"
That's fantastic! They're honest about the employment arrangement and straightforward about expectations.