FishFace

I have never seen one of those vehicles except in a photo, and you seemed to abandon the claim rather than back it up with evidence.

So, that’s why I concluded it was wrong. You’re right, I don’t know it conclusively, but it seems like you can’t justify it either.

Given that you were wrong about your other assertion, I feel like we should be suspicious about this one.

You could be right but you’re just guessing.

Seems like it’d be on a completely different scale, don’t you think?

What happens if you lay off 5,000 employees but then your competitor goes, “lol sike, I’m keeping mine”? You can’t sue them!

Compare what happens if you don’t cold call Apple’s employees to poach them and they cold call yours - you can just start again, and only lost however many months of potential new hires.

You already stated the real reason. Why do you want there to be a secret bonus reason, one that you have presented no actual evidence for?

So then I would say, following this line of thinking, that they are laying people off to reduce costs. Whether to just make a ton of profit, or because other costs are rising, isn’t really the point, because neither explanation is about driving down wages - something that can only be done in collusion with other companies and so is rather far-fetched.

It’s very popular to wail about how the UK is a police state. I guess it’s because the UK is culturally close to the USA, but different in some ways, so people become most aware of those differences, no matter how big they truly are. And Americans are very bad at comparing their own country to others, so an article about how many cameras there are in the UK or in London does not necessarily get such a comparison; it only decries the situation abroad.

You think companies across the US economy are taking decisions which they believe will hurt them in the short term, in order to pursue a long-term benefit? Lol, dream on.

Their logic, such as it is, is that since trans people don’t exist, anybody in the “wrong” bathroom is there for nefarious reasons.

It’s false to anybody with a brain, because trans people do exist. In fact, even if you think gender dysphoria and trans identity are not how they’re commonly described, harsh punishments for using the “wrong” bathroom still don’t make sense, because the logical conclusion would be that those people are misguided or deluded, not predatory.

Still, it behooves us all to understand the emotional reasoning behind gender-segregated bathrooms: in most cultures (at least Western ones, but I think it goes further) there is a deep-seated idea that certain things are wrong if done in the presence of people of the other gender. Cultures with very different attitudes to nudity, for example, still have gender-segregated baths and saunas. I don’t think there’s any logical reason for this, but people (especially conservatives) feel the need to preserve it: the idea of gender-neutral bathrooms is crazy to them.

What, then, do you do with people who say their gender is other than what you, the dominant culture, say it is? Do you let them use the bathroom/shower/sauna they say they should? But then ANYONE could say their gender is different, and you wouldn’t have gender segregation at all! Oh no!

And actually, I agree with this. I think if you’re going to let people pick which bathroom they use according to their self-identification, gender segregated bathrooms are pointless, so we should get rid of them. Of course, this is not a popular view even among moderate left-wingers in Western countries, never mind Republicans, so we have this stupid culture war.

Maybe it does, though this can only come in the form of discounts (because you can’t do personalised prices on the price tag, and you can’t force people to pay more than what’s on the tag)

You putting your bank balance in your phone’s Bluetooth name or what?

I’m kinda glad :/

Anti-tank mines, rather than anti-personnel mines, lest you fear the worst. Not that dropping any kind of mine on Iran is a good thing but, you know, take what you can get.

Russia was still importing Shaheds from Iran and lately has actually exported some back to Iran.

US intelligence sharing is not bullshit - they in fact turned it off for a while last year but turned it back on.

I think you view everything through this lens so there’s not much point discussing further. Thanks for your time.

“We want him crucified with Christ.”

I was gonna write a screed about how this is pretty ironic given Christ’s crucifixion was supposed to be a good thing, but it turns out it is an actual common phrase in born-again (nutter) Christianity meaning “converted”.

That’s… expected? That’s fine?

The point of making those fees illegal is not that overall prices would reduce, it’s that you be able to fairly assess the price before you’re emotionally committed to the decision.

He’s attacking Venezuela and Iran, and threatening Cuba. None of that helps Russia.

The sanctions he’s lifting on Russia demonstrate how disastrous the war has been and do help Russia (as does an increase in oil prices). But cutting off a producer of Shaheds does not, isolating Russia on the world stage by hurting its allies does not, continuing to (mostly) allow Ukraine to use American intelligence does not, etc.

I dunno whether people who spout this are conspiracy brained or just don’t think about it much but either way, please think.

We’re all aware of what he’s done, doesn’t change the outcome.

Russia undoubtedly benefits the most, but not in the long run. Russia benefits from having allies.

Putin is not telling Trump to invade Putin’s ally, Iran. Even if it will hurt America, Putin does not want that, obviously.

Utterly brain-dead take.

Yeah, and beach landings are notoriously hard to oppose.