My first thought was "wait until they hear about Shakespeare". Literally every role filled by men, sometimes with the script explicitly calling for a man to play a female in full attire.

I'd also hate to see what policies they'll enact for their chorale program when performing historical hymns, where soprano parts specifically called for a male eunuch (castrato) to sing since females were not allowed to attend church services including choirs.

In my younger years I would have been absolutely vilified by these people. I'm probably vilified now, but I would've been then too. In all seriousness though, I cannot believe how far backwards we've gone in all this. I recognize that these thoughts and feelings have existed since before I was a kid but at least back then people seemed to have the decency to mind their own.

But to attack theatre of all things with this gender bullshit is attacking theatre itself. Crossdressing in theatre has existed for as long as theatre has existed. Cross-singing has existed for as long as singing has existed. If they're not teaching that stuff in their performing arts programs, they are denying young adults a quality education of the performing arts.

Edit: tl;dr ITT I try and fail to convey that terrorists using innocent people as meat shields/hostages is wrong and a government bombing those terrorists along with their hostages is also wrong. I dunno how that's too confusing for anyone to understand but I guess some folk truly are lost causes.

Original comment below:

Are you implying that Israel has not done any bombing whatsoever? Or are you implying that terrorists hiding behind innocent people means everyone involved must die by bombing? Or are you just a troll trying to get a reaction from people by posting an obviously ignorant comment?

Let me ask you this, if some bank robbers took your family and friends hostage, what do you think the response should be? By your own logic I must assume that they all need to die because criminals were using them as meat shields. By your logic, if your home is being robbed and the robber uses you as a shield, the response should be to mow you down along with the robber. How unlucky for you that the robber chose your house eh? How ignorant.

And if you're struggling to put yourself in those shoes, good. Be glad that you're so far removed from such dangers. But you are not immune. Criminals and potential terrorists exist everywhere, and I truly hope that if you ever find yourself in a hostage situation that the response isn't what you idolize for innocent people in a foreign land. Because even unemphatic scum don't deserve to die simply for being a hostage.

I'd like to assume that you simply forgot a "/s", and I apologize if the sarcastic intent of your comment was lost, but there are people that truly believe what you've said.

I originally had typed out a long-winded reply that I realized was ultimately counterproductive. In all likelihood we should be allies.

So let me start by congratulating you on your new position! I hope that you can continue to pump out that much energy on the job and still have at least that much energy to take home to friends and family.

That said, IMO the fight against the modern work week isn't about people being tired. While I do think most people would be tired and lack energy for self, family, and friends after doing the work you do, that's largely irrelevant. The real problem with the modern work week is that it's simply not necessary any more.

I prefer making the comparison to peasants rather than slaves, as slaves obviously had/have it much worse than the average modern worker. Back in the days of peasantry people worked because they needed the fruit of their labor to survive. Regardless of how many hours it took or how tired they were, they directly relied on the crop they farmed and the clothes they made to survive. That is no longer the case.

In the modern age we produce more than we need to survive on a global scale. There is more than enough for everyone as is and there has been for some time. So why is it still expected that we work the same as we have for years and years? In the age where much of the work is automated and automation increasing rapidly, why is it still inherently expected that humans work just as much, or even remotely close to as much, as we have in the past? To us, the modern work week is essentially arbitrary. We work until "the boss" says we've worked enough to earn our allowance and they say we should be thankful for as much as we're given. We no longer receive or rely on the fruit of our labor in order to survive, "the boss" relies on the fruit of our labor in order to afford their next luxury.

Don't get me wrong, we live in an age of relative comfort. Most of us have plenty to survive and some creature comforts to spare. But if you are apart of "the 98%", which in all likelihood you are, you are not receiving anything even remotely close to what you actually produce.

So, looking past any claims of being tired after 40 hours/week, or how studies have shown that in many cases the modern work week can literally be counterproductive, I ask you why we are expected to work 40 hours/week if it's simply not necessary, aside from "the boss" essentially arbitrarily declaring that it is necessary? And really the fight for a shortened work week and the fight for increased minimum wage are the same fight. It's all based on the fact that we as workers are receiving less and less for our work as time goes by.

That's what the fight is really about, and why -provided you're not a billionaire (which you're very likely not)- we are allies. I may disagree with you on many things, myself and many others may not have as much energy as you, we may not have similar interests or hobbies, but truly none of that matters at all since we are both the modern day equivalent to peasants, except neither of us receives the full fruit of our labor. And for that I call you friend.

So with that, I wish you the greatest success in life friend. And whether or not you join the fight, or even agree with it, may you receive your true worth.

A quote from the judge according to the article:

"I just can't believe being evicted would justify picking up a handgun in that small of a space with children present"

What I find particularly concerning about this is that this implies that being evicted would justify picking up a handgun provided you're not in an enclosed space with children present. Why in the actual fuck would there be any further qualification after "I just can't believe being evicted would justify picking up a handgun". Full stop. You're being evicted. You fucked up. Firearms don't belong in that conversation at all with the only possible exception I can think of being if you are being directly and illegally threatened with a firearm.

Ugh.

Capitalism doesn't endlessly produce, it produces to meet demand. Sometimes the "demand" can consist of subsidies to the industry with the intention of lowering price to consumers, but with the consequence of potentially creating more waste. I've read about farmers dumping excess product out because subsidies "bought" too much product to fit on shelves (aka consumers didn't buy enough to satisfy the greed for profit). Heaven forbid that excess product help people in need, for that may hurt the bottom line.

You honestly said it best in the first thing you said. .."capitalists that put profit before".. everything else. Pure capitalists, while mostly if not entirely evil, do not pollute for the fun of it. They pollute because of greed. If they aren't profiting from polluting, they'll (try to) find another way to profit. It's all they know, a literal one track mind.

That is definitely not to say that their carelessness while chasing profit is okay. It's harmful and evil. But it is largely just that, carelessness. A pure capitalist cares of nothing other than personal gain. And a public corporation in capitalist society must put shareholder profits ahead of all else by law. The only things they must adhere to in pursuit of profit are other laws, and even then only if the penalty for breaking the law hurts profits more than ignoring the law. This is by design, however terrible that design may be. Examples of this are everywhere. Children illegally hired in packing plants, illegal union busting, etc.

Perhaps the most brazen examples are car manufacturers doing cost-benefit analysis on whether to issue a recall on defective cars. Literally teams of experts calculating whether it will be cheaper to recall and fix dangerous defects, or pay out lawsuits when people get hurt/die. Spoiler: they can, have, and do choose to eat the cost of lawsuits when it is calculated to be cheaper than a recall. And yes, if you live in a capitalist society your life has a dollar amount attached to it (roughly $7.5 million as of 2020 according to FEMA). Your social security number may as well be a barcode placed on product.

Sorry, I got a little sidetracked. What I'm ultimately trying to get at is, we as consumers will have to take responsibility for consuming less because industry will do its' best to meet demand as long as it is profitable to do so. I think switching subsidies to alternative, less polluting foods is a great solution because it (in theory) works on multiple fronts.

By not subsidizing the meat & dairy industry, industry will be forced to raise cost to consumers or lose money. A higher cost to consumers means consumers will be more open to alternative options. If the options that are better for the environment are then subsidized to lower cost to consumers they become an attractive option.

Example: If the average meat eating, non-eco minded consumer has the choice between paying $50 for a pound of real meat, or $50 for a pound of meat alternative that tastes identical, they'll choose real meat nearly every time. Now give that same consumer an option of $10 for a pound of meat alternative (whether it tastes identical or not) and the mental math changes considerably. And honestly I doubt the price difference would have to be that drastic to have a noticeable impact on consumer buying habits. Especially when you take into account that people are trending towards being more eco aware.

I'm gonna end this here before I go on ranting all day. /Rant

Tldr; capitalism sucks. Subsidizing meat alternatives seems like a decent idea. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. I hope you all have a wonderful day, and achieve all of your dreams. Please leave me alone :)

What is the punishment for disclosing the confidential material that he is reviewing? And what punishment would a "normal" person face? If the answers are anything like the punishment Trump faced for violating a court-mandated gag order, I suspect he will talk about these confidential documents, and punishment will consist of a harsh tone and finger wagging. And don't be fooled, to the wealthy (or to those receiving large sums in political donations), a monetary fine measured in thousands of dollars is just that: a harsh tone and finger wag.

IDGAF if he's the former president. IDGAF if it were Biden, Clinton, or the most liberal/Democratic person in existence. If they break the law, if they break court orders, punish them equally.

This is infuriating. Let me make sure I've got this right:

So, our military personnel "volunteer" to serve, and in doing so are forced to reside at whatever military base in whichever State/country that the higher ups decide. Then the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which allowed for existing abortion bans to go into effect in various states as well as paved the way for other abortion bans to be put into effect. Our military personnel are also bound by the laws of wherever they are stationed. To help alleviate the concerns of our military personnel, President Biden issued a travel reimbursement policy so that our volunteer based military personnel wouldn't have to pay to travel somewhere that they more agree with the laws of, to have a medical procedure performed that is outlawed where they have been forced to reside. Then this chucklefuck Tuberville decides to block any and all military promotions because he essentially thinks that the most regressive state laws should apply to the entire volunteer based military. And then he complains that the military is facing personnel issues? Excuse me but what the fuck? Am I missing something?

I don't think anyone is even forcing states to allow abortions for military personnel, just trying to provide travel reimbursement so that personnel can go to a state that hasn't banned abortions without having to pay the travel costs themselves. Right? Why wouldn't we want that policy? Military personnel don't get to choose where they're stationed (they do sometimes get some say but they don't make the final decision) so why not reimburse them if they're forced to travel for medical reasons?

If he thinks the military is facing personnel issues now, and at least partially because he's interfering, has he even considered the ramifications of taking even more rights away from people that volunteer to serve? I mean, ffs they already give up many of their rights as is. And abortion bans have already proven to be an extremely unpopular policy, with citizens in several Republican states already voting against said bans and in fairly large numbers with large margins to boot.

I legitimately feel like I must be missing something. Can this guy really be this stupid? Or does he actually despise the American people? Is there some pro-life lobbying group ~~bribing~~ donating to him for him to do this?

Do you believe UN reports about the "Hamas aligned side"? Or is that just some big conspiracy?

And by your own words: "Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime." "Do you remember that refugee camp they hit yesterday?" I'll even concede and say sure, let's assume there were Hamas terrorists hiding in the refugee camp. Let's also assume there was terrorist-supporting infrastructure in the refugee camp. Guess what though. IT WAS STILL A FUCKING REFUGEE CAMP!

Let that sink in extra slow through your thick skull. Read through several times if you must. They knew there were innocent civilians in a refugee camp. They also suspected terrorists in said refugee camp. If you think the best and only option was to bomb that refugee camp, you're wrong and a monster. Or is it that you're simply a racist that thinks that every Palestinian is a terrorist simply for existing on the wrong "side"?

Let's say we find out that there's some terrorists hiding out in your city. Is the only solution to bomb the city? Yourself, your family, and your friends included? Let's say we narrow it down to terrorists hiding on your block. What's your solution? How much "collateral damage" (innocent civilian deaths) is acceptable to root out the terrorism that exists in your home town?

Edit: I would like to add that yes, this is distracting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would also like to add that I recognize that I do not know nearly enough about this conflict to speak with authority on the subject. What I do know enough about though is that not every Palestinian is involved with nor supports Hamas. And not every Israeli is involved with nor supports the IDF. There are many Innocent people that have died, and are continuing to die from both sides of this conflict. And every one of those deaths is a tragedy. I wholeheartedly condemn Hamas' killings of innocent civilians, and I wholeheartedly condemn Israel's killings of innocent civilians. Both sides fucking suck and the people that are truly paying the price are the innocent people dying and losing loved ones. I don't know what the answer is, or even if there is a "right answer". Maybe a special ground operation would have minimized loss of life? I don't know. What I definitely do know is that I will never be okay with the deaths of innocent people.

Idk about OP but I've been ashamed of my country since at least ~~2016~~ ~~2001~~ ~~1990~~ ~~August 6, 1945~~ the 17th century when "we" decided that land settled by Native Americans somehow belonged to us. I wasn't alive for most of that time but I guarantee my country has done shameful things for muuuch longer than 24 days.

So so very close to piecing together why bombing a refugee camp even if there are terrorists or supporting infrastructure located there is a terrible idea.

I truly don't know how you can recognize that Hamas wants civilians to die because it will strengthen their numbers, and still excuse the bombing of civilians. Perhaps you're just trolling?

I had to check. They actually said this. I've never played Warhammer (I have been interested, just haven't gotten around to it) and I don't know these devs at all, but contradicting themselves with just seven words in the same sentence is actually kind of impressive.

I could have lived my whole life just fine never seeing the combination of words "Gape-flavored Kool Aid". It would have cost you nothing.

That said, it's too late now so I think I'll drop this on friends sometime so I'm not alone in my despair.