Meanwhile it is a regular occurrence for right-wing dipshits to run their trucks through crowds of protestors and get away with little to no consequences. They end up being classified as “road-rage” incidents rather than the politically motivated acts of terrorism that they are.

Do you have a source I could look into about this? What I’ve seen so far suggests the call came from inside the house, since the people doing the coup are the same ones who installed Andry Rajoelina in the first place after a previous coup.

We need to be learning from this what happens when you topple a regime without a plan for what comes next. People who do have a plan are going to step in and take advantage, and the people who did all the work will have wasted their efforts making way for another tyrannical regime. It may have worked out (so far) for Nepal, but it’s not common for military leadership to relinquish power after they have it like they did there.

Could be a Yellow American Blusher (Amanita Flavorubins), would need a close-up of the gills and a region to be sure.

Possibly Sunshine Amanita (Amanita Aprica) if this is in the PNW.

I wish I could do this in reverse. My palms always be sweatin’.

forgiving student loan debt is by definition regressive. You cannot have poorer people’s money going to richer people and say it’s not regressive.

By this logic all public services are regressive, since everyone pays into them and there will always be someone poorer who pays in and someone wealthier who benefits. That’s why progressive tax rates exist, so that the amount of tax people pay is proportional to how much they are able to contribute. Our progressive tax system only breaks down at the upper levels with the obscenely wealthy. Despite this - on average - the poor benefit the most from student loan forgiveness and the (relatively) rich contribute the most. This is because even though the rich and poor alike would have their student debt forgiven, the rich would be paying more tax to make up for it. It’s really a very simple concept, and should not be so difficult for you to understand.

Now, as an extra note, if we corrected our progressive tax system to tax the obscenely wealthy at the highest possible rate (as a progressive tax system is supposed to - and used to - do), there would be absolutely no question as to where the wealth is being distributed, because the wealthiest people who currently pay little to no tax hold more wealth than the rest of us combined.

It’s only regressive if the tax that funds the student loan forgiveness is regressive. If we have a progressive tax system - which we do, for the most part (excepting the ultra rich who are able to dodge taxes without consequence) - then it is not a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, but at worst a horizontal wealth redistribution and at best a wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. Whoever gave you this idea lied to you and/or was lied to.

I’m making this comment with a OnePlus 6T I got 8 years ago when it was new and it has never needed repairs, so I wouldn’t exactly call it dogshit. Even the battery still lasts a couple days of heavy use before needing a charge, though that may have more to do with my efforts in reducing software overhead over the years. (Also making sure almost everything I ever view on it has an AMOLED dark background)

Another thing that’s happening with people that are “cancelled” is that they immediately get offered to join a group of “cancelled” public figures who bond over being disgusting pariahs and rebuild their careers by grifting to the right. Andrew Callaghan of channel 5 news (also All Gas No Brakes) talks about getting a job offer from InfoWars just a week after the sexual assault allegations against him went public. They anticipated he would respond by rebranding as “anti cancel culture” like so many others rather than admit fault and make a genuine effort to improve.

For those unaware of what happened with Andrew Callaghan, he had a habit of getting drunk and then pressuring/coercing women into having sex. His response was not perfect IMO, but he did confess that he had a problem and sobered up, which is more than can be said of most “victims of cancel culture.”

You’re a moron if you think Hamas surrendering would stop Israel from carrying out their genocide. They have fully committed to the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and nothing short of the international community using military force will stop them now.

I assume they’re referring to how the presence of frogs is an indicator as to the cleanliness of the water. If the river is highly polluted no frogs will be present.

Don’t show this to Trump, he’ll insist that it’s real.

My dad’s ringtone is a motorcycle engine revving at max volume, and he never silences it. He also just lets it ring when he doesn’t want to answer.

The mistake Hammond made in Jurassic Park wasn’t cloning dinosaurs, it was mismanaging the park due to greed.

So clearly you didn’t fully read my comment, so why should I expend the effort typing out a response? It would be a waste if you’re just going to read part of it and then ask questions I’ve already given the answer to.

You’ve answered your own question, ending imperialism and colonialism so that unequal exchange doesn’t create massive wealth disparities between nations and war no longer displaces people en masse, thereby “uplifting” formerly exploited peoples, would remove most of the incentives for mass migration. In a world at peace with itself borders are not necessary. Ask yourself, why is there no need to criminalize immigration between states/provinces within a country such as the US? Because the US, for the time being, is a nation at peace with itself. It doesn’t have to be a perfect utopia - the US most certainly is not - to eliminate the need for border security / immigration control. Even a tenuous peace and a dubious justice is enough to eliminate the need for border enforcement.

Edit: This is a good write-up about how the criminalization of migrants does not even serve as an adequate deterrent to migration anyway. It is not only unjust, it’s futile.

I agree that there are legitimate reasons to manage immigration, but criminalizing the act is a complete no-go for me. There are other ways to manage immigration by creating incentives and disincentives that would make the criminalization of migrants unnecessary. I also believe that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right and that borders are nothing more than an authoritarian system of control. “Security” is only made necessary by the problems that nation-states create themselves by existing.

“Jews and Muslims can’t coexist and it’s all the Muslims’ fault, that’s why we have to force Muslims off their land and establish a Jewish ethnostate. We have a right to it anyway because god gave it to us or whatever. How dare they fight back!”

This is your argument, and we are the ones being disingenuous?

You can’t act like Israel was just peacefully minding its own business when Hamas attacked. Israel was founded by ethnic cleansing and had been slowly trying to finish the job for decades by forcing Palestinians into smaller and smaller areas, taking control of their utilities and resources, and depriving them of their rights. Oct. 7th gave Israel an excuse to escalate what they had already been doing.

Ah, yes, because there’s only two options: a two state solution or the complete extermination of the entire Palestinian population. Is it really so difficult to imagine one state with equal rights for all? It’s not going to be easy getting there after all that’s taken place, but it is the only path to justice.