Rottcodd

There was likely a time when "incel" just meant "involuntarily celibate," without all of the baggage, but then two things happened together.

First, a significant number of "incels," most notably on 4chan, fell into a specific set of essentially misogynistic coping behaviors - primarily blaming the supposed hypocrisy and shallowness of women for their own problems.

And second, a significant number of smugly self-righteous bigots saw an opportunity to hurl self-affirming hatred at an undifferentiated mass of people without suffering the backlash they'd get if it was directed at a group that essentially enjoys protected status, and leaped at the opportunity.

So now the popular conception is that all involuntarily celibate men are "incels," with all that that implies - that they're not just involuntarily celibate, but shallow, hateful, misogynistic losers and assholes.

It could potentially help if involuntarily celibate men who don't share the misogyny of the "incels" had their own label, but honestly I don't think it would make much of a difference in the long run, because there are now enough asshole bigots reveling in their hatred of "incels" that they'd refuse to let anyone get away. Just like all other more traditional bigots, they'd cling to their self-affirming conception that the mere fact that an individual is of a specific ~~race~~ ~~gender~~ ~~sexual orientation~~ relationship status means that they're necessarily foul and loathsome, so their hatred of them is justified.

I have no more right to interfere in someone else's life than they have to interfere in mine.

Avoid people who don't share that view.

None.

I think that the exact measure of whether or not a war is justified is whether or not people are willing to fight it.

It's very rare for a war to be a direct threat to the people. That's generally only the case in a situation like Gaza, in which the invaders explicitly intend to not only take control of the land, but to kill or drive off the current inhabitants.

As a general rule, the goal is simply to assume control over the government, as is the case in Ukraine.

So the war is generally not fought to protect and/or serve the interests of the people directly, but to protect and/or serve the interests of the ruling class. And rather obviously, the ruling class has a vested interest in the people fighting to protect them and/or serve their interests. But the thing is that the people do not necessarily share that interest.

And that, IMO, is exactly why conscription is always wrong. If the people do not feel a need to protect and/or serve the interests of the rulers, then that's just the way it is. That choice rightly belongs to the people - not to the rulers.

Mm... no. It's really not.

The specific point of all of this was that Google wanted to avoid a jury trial, and the specific reason that they wanted to avoid a jury trial is because a jury trial is much more likely to end up with a much bigger judgment against them. A judge in a bench trial will follow established precedent to arrive at a reasonable penalty, while a jury can and often will essentially arbitrarily decide that they should be fined eleventy bajillion dollars for being assholes.

So their goal with this payment was pretty much exactly the same as the goal of the motorist who slips a traffic cop a bribe to get out of a ticket - to entice someone with immediate cash in order to avoid potentially having to pay much more somewhere down the line.

So basically the corporate equivalent of slipping a traffic cop a $100, then him conveniently deciding that you're free to go.

Best of luck to them.

It's true in essentially all industries, but it's especially obvious in rideshare that there's a layer of parasites who get paid far too much money for nothing beyond the fact that they won the fight for the position of "parasite who gets paid far too much money for doing nothing."

Anything that might even just decrease the number of overpaid parasites would be a benefit not just to the concerned industry, but to society as a whole.

How deliciously ironic that this is paywalled.

I would say that it depends on how the other person feels about the thing in question.

If the person you say it to is sincerely lauding something, then yeah - I'd say it's necessarily insulting, since you're implying not only that they have no taste, but that they've been indoctrinated into mindlessly singing the thing's (nonexistent) praises.

But if the other person is simply asking about the thing, or better yet, has already signaled their own disdain for it, then it's just a potentially appropriate potential witticism.

I'm sold.

Certainly.

I saw in another post that AMA is apparently copyrighted (which is ridiculous, but I guess rent-seeking fuckwads are gonna do what they're gonna do). At worst, what that means though is that if the fuckwads at Reddit care enough, they can arrange for a DMCA takedown if someone uses it.

And unless they're even more stupid than I cynically presume, Reddit isn't even going to do that, since the last thing they should want to do is try to establish a precedent of criminal sanctions against forums that host copyrighted material.

I say use whatever the fuck words you want to use.

IMO the only relevant issue is whether or not they accomplish the task of communicating the thing you wanted to communicate in the way you wanted to communicate it. If so, then they're as right as they need to be, and any objection anyone else might have is only your problem to the extent that you allow it to be. If you care what they think then it matters, but if you don't then it doesn't.