This is literally just wrong dude

No lol your second statement is literally just wrong. The only way to do anything like this would be through an Amendment, which equated to literally changing the rules bc the current rules do not allow for it.

What are you trying to say?

Holy fuck the mental gymnastics on display are Olympic-level, you should try out for the team sometime.

I wasn’t commenting on that, just that the new york post means nothing. Regardless, I frankly don’t give a shit what the police say; they’re not exactly known for telling the truth.

Just fyi, the new york post is as dogshit as fox news. If you’re looking to get actual information, you’re better off looking elsewhere.

Not sure about here but yeah they definitely execute a lot of people for being gay: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/02/yemen-will-publicly-stone-crucify-10-gay-men-in-gruesome-public-spectacles/

I have 0 sympathy for barbaric ideas like executing people for being queer. I cannot imagine they ever act in any measure of good faith, regardless of the scenario.

Source?

Edit: genuinely asking, I can’t find anything saying that.

It’s literally not, like actually. Google it.

That said, dude didn’t illegally bypass Congress, they gave the president that authority in the 70s and expanded upon it under bush. I don’t agree with it, I think he shouldn’t have done it and that it shouldn’t even be possible. It is absolutely something to legitimately critique Biden for, but it is not bypassing congress in some loophole thing.

In the 70’s US, most people were entirely unaware of the subject. Violence against trans people absolutely occurred, and it was absolutely horrific, but the problems mostly stemmed from true ignorance. It was not like today where over 500 anti-trans bills were introduced this year to systematically harm, erase, and even hunt people for not identifying with what they were assigned at birth. With multiple organizations like the HRC declaring a state of emergency for trans people, yes, things today are undoubtedly more hostile than they have been in the past.

Talk to older people

How about you do that? I do quite frequently, in fact. From the events I’ve created or attended to celebrate trans identities, older trans people have exclusively expressed to me their fears for the growing hatred, and how it is unlike anything they have seen before. There are far more people that are accepting today than ever, yes, but there are also far more people who have so much extreme bigotry that they commit violence against trans people.

If only that were true. I can’t speak for the world as a whole, but things are pretty bad in the US. As a whole, LGBTQ+, especially trans folks, are at the highest risk of being victimized in the last 50 years. Just a few months ago, about 15 miles away from where I live, a trans kid was lured by right wing extremists and murdered. They used Grindr to catfish him in a planned, coordinated action. They are on trial for it right now.

I used that example to iterate how problems do exist in our personal communities. Anecdotes are not proof of larger societal trends, but the societal trends show it is a societal problem, too.

Yes, the number in the article I linked is not large by itself, but it is important to remember they are nearly all people who were fully out and were not afraid to tell people it. Most trans people are either somewhat or entirely closeted for safety.

The first page is pretty much all you need for the context of the conversation. Basically, according to the paper, Black people in the US are significantly more likely to be exonerated of any crime, but especially murder. This inversely means they’re significantly more likely to be found guilty of a crime they did not commit.

The reasoning, I assume, for the person to link you that article is because of your statement about crime rates. I believe the other commenter is trying to say that crime rates are not actually equal once you normalize for poverty because of the high rate of false convictions.

Tbh, I’m not really sure what else to say about that. I just wanted to comment my thoughts on your question since I saw how rude the person you commented to was.

Infinite growth is fine when the thing growing isn’t real, like money. Money is not a resource we find in reality, it’s purely a human-made representation of value. It’s only when it spreads to real resources does infinite growth become a problem.

I’m not making the claim myself, just explaining it is a bit different than engaging in what we colloquially understand to be conspiratorial thinking. I would argue it falls under that category in the most broad, objective sense, but I would also argue that the common belief about conspiratorial thinking is that it is when someone believes demonstrably false information.

The difference is that most conspiratorial thinking is believing something despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary while this situation is believing something despite a lack of conclusive, objective evidence (that being no official statement from Musk or investigation into him about this). There is a lack of overwhelming evidence in support of Musk.

Lmfao apparently it’s “bootlicking” to point out a criminally online take. I, for one, don’t think people should be judged based on circumstances out of their control, like where or when they were born. There are plenty of reasons to dislike the dude, like no really there are so god damn many, but him being born into it is not one of them.

I’m not even saying you shouldn’t be pleased to see his death, just that making jokes about the suffering that occurs from cancer is a take so distant from reality of course you’ll only see it online. If you are genuinely pleased by hearing about someone’s cancer diagnosis, you should really do some self evaluation.

If you think him dying from that will purge the UK of the monarchy, I have a bridge to sell you. There are actual things you could do to help end it, the original comment I replied to isn’t one.

You originally said “at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified”. But fair enough, I suppose. I understand what you mean.

Ehhhh, not really. This is a pretty common belief about the Hyperloop. A couple of years ago, someone released a book claiming they had private interviews with Musk back in the early 2010’s where he admitted to trying to delay HSR. Here’s an article explaining it: https://jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-to-stop-california-high-spee-1849402460

The reason this is not conspiratorial thinking is that automakers have a long history in the US of dismantling, lobbying against, and even physically preventing railways from being developed. Elon Musk, especially at that time, was an automaker making claims in order to directly counter proposed high speed rail.

Yes, it was in California, but the intended reasoning is that if it succeeds in California it may be expanded upon elsewhere, meaning there would be less reliance on cars.

Bro please go outside, go for a walk or something

Andrew Jackson was president like 20 years before the civil war my guy. Ulysses S. Grant was president when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. I’m not really sure how you thought otherwise. Regardless, your other point about his reference to himself as an officer is irrelevant anyways because that’s not what determines him to be an officer of the court.

The actual reason is that when the 14th Amendment was being signed, the specific question of “why does it not mention president” was asked nearly verbatim. One of the writers of the Amendment, who I’m forgetting the name of, replied to them by asking them to read over the part where it says “any officer”. We know this because we have the minutes from that day, we have the transcription as it was recorded by hand at the time.

A federal court already determined Trump to have engaged in insurrection. By all accounts, he should be barred from running.

I’m sorry homie but VR is going nowhere. No one outside of a small, niche community even cares about it anymore.