I am certainly no fan of George W Bush, but what I’m saying is that every single sensible person that can come out against this orange nutboy, the better. Even if 1,000 people who thought George W bush was awesome reconsiders their vote, it’s a good thing.

Hey, you guys have been doing great with Arab and Muslim voters recently, right? I’m sure that more than 1,000 of them would change their vote after seeing you be friendly with Bush. Surely nobody would finally come to realize that Democrats really stand for nothing after seeing that.

Machine translators make heavy use of machine learning/LLMs on the back end. This is necessary to an extent since the same phrase can have different meanings depending on context, but it also means that the usual biases from machine learning can crop up easily. The most famous example is that if you translated something like “I waved to the doctor” and “I waved to the nurse” to Spanish, it used to give the masculine form/pronouns for the first sentence and the feminine form/pronouns for the second sentence, even though there is no indication of gender in the English version. So there’s a good chance that the context of who is kicking who can cause Google Translate to interpret the same phrase differently due to this bias.

Oh yeah for sure. I just thought it was funny that in addition to destroying Shinzo Abe’s legacy, he also stopped America from exporting its transphobic propaganda to Japan at the same time.

Oh god, they named it “XGPT”. This has got to be the fastest I’ve seen marketers devalue the meaning of a word.

MSNBC columnist and former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance called Trump’s scrutinizing of Haley’s citizenship “an offensive question that’s contrary to American values.

“The Founding Fathers imposed a restriction, but it’s hard to believe that it was meant to burden a second generation of American citizens born on American soil like Nikki Haley,” Vance added. "But nonetheless, the question of the term ‘natural born citizen’ has not been fully fleshed out in the courts, and it may be that Trump is relegating us to more meaningless discourse in this area just like he did with the birther lies about Obama.”

Love how when a racist and xenophobic law is invoked to make racist and xenophobic political attacks, their response is not to point out that such a law should not exist in an actual democracy, but to argue that the Founding Fathers only intended to be xenophobic towards first-generation immigrants and not second-generation immigrants. I’m pretty sure that if the Founding Fathers heard about this they’d be more offended to learn that women and non-white people were allowed to run for office in the first place.

What are the odds that this guy also thinks that trans people making the choice for themselves to get surgery is “mutilation”

The creator of the flag was not only a slaveowner but also owned a port where an estimated 100,000 slaves were brought in from Africa.

There are enough problems with how the education system treats people as is; why are judges allowed to assign children homework explicitly as a punishment? Firing one cop isn’t enough, every single person involved in making that decision should have lost their jobs.

“Capitalists will sell us the woke we hang them with”

How do Democrats still not understand that giving concessions to the “merits” of fascist rhetoric (like they’re doing with trans people as well) will never make people think you’re more “reasonable”, and will always further normalize hatred? Or do they understand it and that’s exactly why they’re doing it? They’ve done it so many times that it has to be a conscious decision at this point, right?

Scheduling processes to balance out their CPU usage sounds too much like communism, so instead the processes using the most resources will be given an even bigger share, so they can use it to create jobs.

Several worms come pre-installed, because the best way to overcome viruses is through herd immunity.

Parent processes will not be able to terminate child processes, because life begins at execution.

There is only HTTP and not HTTPS to make sure you can’t visit any un-Christian websites in secret.

Multithreading sounds too much like multiculturalism, so it is not supported.

Only ASCII characters are supported, so the computer can’t communicate with China and give them our secrets.

Only available on CISC architectures, to make sure it can’t be infected by the trans agenda.

The monkey’s paw curls

Oh god, repealing that law is going to open the way for Elon Musk to run isn’t it.

Believes in an ideology which valorizes greed and selfishness

Complains when fellow believers in that ideology use their education to become fossil fuel execs, Supreme Court justices, and hedge fund managers instead of doing a teaching job which requires more effort and pays way less.

Remember when I was like “It’s weird that a lot of movies have villains that had trauma that ‘turned them evil’ as a trope”

The thing is, this isn’t even true for Voldemort. By the text of the story, he was just Intrinsically Evil™ and even as a child he was always the one hurting bullying other people and not the one being bullied. So this is one of the worst possible choices of villains they could have used.

Two months after a prominent conservative activist and fundraiser was caught hosting white supremacist Nick Fuentes, leaders of the Republican Party of Texas have voted against barring the party from associating with known Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers.

In a 32-29 vote on Saturday, members of the Texas GOP’s executive committee stripped a pro-Israel resolution of a clause that would have included the ban. In a separate move that stunned some members, roughly half of the board also tried to prevent a record of their vote from being kept.

There is no better representation of US politics right now than being pro-Israel while simultaneously refusing to stop associating with Nazis.

Is there evidence that the currently existing laws you refer to are doing this?

The context under which the laws were created can change the overall effects of implementing the law, even if the exact text doesn’t change. The 24-week laws were most likely created just as abortion was moving from illegal/grey-area/taboo to legal/generally accepted, so it would read more so as a law to specifically allow abortions up to 24 weeks for any reason, rather than a law which is meant to specifically restrict something. Given that it is very rare for abortions that fall under this law to actually be carried out, there hasn’t be a real reason to look for it historically, so it is effectively unenforced.

However, if such a restriction was newly created, it would be moving away from a situation where abortion being legal is the status quo, so it would in effect be a law which imposes additional restrictions, rather than a law that mostly removes pre-existing restrictions. The creation of a new restriction indicates that there was no enforcement before, and thus implies that new enforcement is required. How do you create an enforcement mechanism that isn’t trivially bypassed (i.e. having a given doctor just lie about the age of the fetus or level of danger towards the mother) without placing a burden on abortions that supposedly would stay legal (like some sort of verification requirement)? Especially when the religious right will try to push restrictions as far as possible? The status quo of “effectively no enforcement” (at the federal level and the state level in most blue states anyways) seems vastly preferable to the most likely results of trying to enforce anything.

Seems like a political freebie to dull the point on a polarizing wedge issue.

I don’t think this is true. There is a momentum to public opinion, and adding a new restriction would push momentum in favor of the anti-abortion movement, whereas currently existing 24-week laws were created in a context where momentum was moving in favor of the pro-abortion movement. I think it’s hard to deny that a newly created law is easier for right-wingers to capitalize on compared to an old law that has always been pretty much unenforced.

Even if this was passed, the right-wing media would still lie and say that millions of fully-formed babies were being killed. The only people this would convince are those who 1) would not fall for the aforementioned lie 2) consider the 24-week mark to be the most important moral distinction with respect to fetal personhood (i.e. do not believe in “life at conception” or “first heartbeat”) 3) do not consider 0.05% (likely a huge overestimate) of abortions being “unjustified” to be acceptable in the name of protecting abortion rights. I don’t think there are many people that fulfill all of those criteria.

Given that the benefit of such a law is pretty minimal even in the best case, raising the issue seems like a bad idea so long as the religious right still exists.

Migrant workers who produce half the food in the country: Not needed for the revolutionary movement

Women who perform hours of unpaid childcare labor in addition to a 40-hour workweek: Not needed for the revolutionary movement

White guys who are paid $200,000 per year to eat donuts and harass minorities: Absolutely essential to the revolutionary movement, even hinting to them that they should maybe re-examine their biases should be anathema

From the article:

However, even with the huge price mark-up in America, the Chinese cancer drugs will still be priced significantly less than similar drugs sold in the US.