Doublespeak. Republicans actively work to twist the meaning of words to their base to fit their agenda, so that the other side playing by the rules and being fair looks like political cheating. That way Republicans can engage in political cheating themselves and claim self defense.

In today’s flavor, “legal standard” means “the ability to make us lose” so they want to apply their own “legal standard” to democrats.

It sounds dumb to anyone paying attention, but their voters will eat this up.

I don’t need to show you statistics to shed light on their intent. It’s not hard to figure out what they’re doing. It’s also not hard to see that what they’re doing is damage control. The result of that would be keeping their polls from going down, not making them go up. You can’t prove a negative, so I don’t know what you want me to do.

As far as diluting the seriousness of what they’ve done, go turn on fox news. They blast Biden’s “insurrection” and impeachment “proceedings” 24/7. Do you need more proof than that?

Lastly, if you’re trying to defend your original statement, you’re preaching to the choir here. You don’t have to be an asshole about it. It’s a bit asinine to assert that they aren’t doing it with intent.

It’s a bad argument to consider not enforcing the law, but it’s not an incorrect statement. Republicans responded to the impeachment of Trump by continously trying to impeach Biden. They’re responding to the insurrection by pointing at things dems do and yelling insurrection.

It’s dumb and incorrect, but it’s pretty effective at diluting the seriousness of those particular actions to their own voter base. You could argue that that’s the point.

Not for the corporations that make money off of extorting a basic necessity from poor people! Won’t someone think of the corporations?

Translation: “I watch exclusively conservative media and consequently have no idea what’s real or not”

There is a voice I consciously control, and there is one that I don’t. They kind of intermingle into a single monologue, but I can still hear the one I don’t control when I consciously turn off my monologue. It’s still a quiet presence almost in the back of my mind.

One way I’ve rationalized it, it’s like when you meditate and your thoughts still flow over you. You don’t actively control those thoughts, that’s kind of the point. I’m finding that those thoughts have a coherent voice for me. They speak through my monologue, but they are still there when I shut my monologue off. Under the surface, quieter, with the rest of the thoughts I don’t control.

One of the “constantly” group here. It’s a bit more like having someone to talk to all the time who is also me. I can turn it off, but it has to be a concentrated effort and as soon as I’m not concentrated on keeping it silent it comes back.

I’ve spent many years wondering at the nature of the little voice, especially after I learned that not everyone has it. It’s not controlling or contradictory, it’s a bit more like a narrator for my feelings and a driving point for logic.

I’ve come to the conclusion that what it actually is is my subconscious manifesting as a conversational partner. Kind of like an avatar that represents the part of me that isn’t the literal point of consciousness inside my head. Make of that what you will.

Don’t get me wrong, I still think in pictures and non-verbal inclinations. That doesn’t really go away either. But it’s like having a narrator alongside it that also speaks in the first person.

Maybe that’s the point. Unity caves immediately to the big lawyers and says “Sorry guys, we tried. Looks like all you little studios will have to pay up after all. Blame Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft”

The first step is to make it illegal to sideload “illegal” apps. It’s the step that sounds reasonable that less informed people might agree with or at least not protest. The next step is to arbitrarily decide what makes an app illegal. By that point, it’s too late to protest the actual law.

It’s like the law in Florida making the punishment death for sexual assault on a child. That sounds fine until you realize that their legislature has announced their intent to make wearing clothes opposite your gender in public into sexual assault on a child.

Unilateral restrictive laws, without specific stipulations or conditions, even innocent sounding ones like this, are one bad actor away from being changed to a political weapon.

You’re not wrong, but consider that people who justified sticking around for some reason or another might leave because the brand change (to a name that is so brain dead even a little offensive) finally hits home for them that it isn’t going to be the same.

A brand name change is about the single most overt thing you can do to send the message that a product isn’t going to be the same. And when that happens, people tend to look at the recent trends for that product to get an idea of what to expect. The recent trends for Twitter happen to be right-wing echo chamber.

So yeah, the people who were going to leave have largely already left. But this brand change is going to be effective at galvanizing those who remain.

Do you know that donation to Mozilla don’t (and can’t legally) fund Firefox development, right?

Two lines on a graph don’t prove that statement. What you’ve proven is that the chair of Mozilla is making more as the market share is going down. Now connect the dots with a source that shows why those numbers matter and you’re golden.

“We won’t use it for that even though we could”

Is just the first step in a series of corporate decisions that inevitably leads to

“We know we said we wouldn’t, but we didn’t realize how much money we could make”

Google took “do no evil” out of their mission statement. Why would you trust them to stick to their word and not develop this tech in a way that helps their own ad platform make money?

What if you knew it was shit, like you watched something defacate it. It still tastes like chocolate. Would you still eat that over a candy bar that you know is definitely factory produced and sanitary, but still tastes like shit?

Politicians in America have people on both sides hypnotized to equate socialism with bolshevik communism. That’s a major reason why we can’t move any meaningful distance left as a country, but we can move right at the blink of an eye. Socialism is a dirty word here, for no other reason than the fact that big corporations pay politicians to demonize it.

That’s the dumbest part. There’s no guarantee that this ipo bid is going to pan out. Huffman is betting big, it’s just too bad he’s so full of himself that he doesn’t realize his actions will probably be what causes this ipo to fail.

He wanted to fly under the radar and make changes that look good on paper while keeping the community relatively the same. Instead he made a splash so big that major news outlets are still talking about it months later, and now he’s actively alienating the volunteer work that holds the whole site together.

“Become profitable” is just their stated goal.

I think that their actual goal is to look profitable for the upcoming ipo so that the CEOs can cash a fat check and leave. They likely don’t care about what happens after that.

So the “become profitable while simultaneously destroying everything that made it valuable” platitude is more like “they’re cutting down the tree for the wood without thinking about the squirrels”

I see your 75 years and raise you to 100 years. That’s now the truth.