It may not be the joke you intended to make, but it’s definitely the joke you made.

You seem more interested in assuming they didn’t like it because it was a rape joke and less in the fact that it just wasn't a good joke. "Hey guys, Mojang is raping me, lol." isn't exactly George Carlin level stuff, buddy.

And let’s be real here, guns are absolutely intended to kill. They have no right or wrong, but their job is to kill and they do that quite well. Whether you’re killing civilians, cops, rabbits or intruders, the reason you got that gun is to kill or seriously injure another thing, justified or not, the gun doesn't…

What the fuck are you on about? The intent of guns is absolutely to kill. Guns certainly don’t have an inherent morality, but they were invented and intended to both protect and acquire food as you state, both of which involve killing. Make whatever case you want about whether or not people should have guns, but if…

I figure if you can make a Lego movie, a Minecraft movie isn’t too much of a stretch. If the Emoji movie thing is real, it definitely wouldn’t surprise me, although is anyone actually emotionally connected to emojis? Lego and Minecraft have fun toys and games, but emojis are just kind of a side-effect of text-based…

Nah, I'm pretty sure Mythbusters tested that and it was bullshit.

Come on, they'd give him the option. $0.25 in store credit or $0.000000001 in cash.

It’s not that coverage is collaboration by itself, if there were documents or people coming forward confirming that those news organizations explicitly buried or promoted stories to intentionally collaborate with a candidate, thenot Congress would absolutely take issue with it. As far as we know, Facebook just…

I can tell from your capitalization and the five exclamation points that you know what you’re talking about.

It really didn’t. I hate the decision as much as anyone, but there’s a whole lot of misinformation out there about it.

The bakery case had to do with businesses following public accommodation requirements and had nothing to do with campaign contributions. Please gain a basic understanding of the law and come back.

Eh, not really. Direct campaign contributions, which is what that would be, are still very much controlled. Citizen’s United is just the reason Super PACs exists, because companies still need to funnel their cash through a Super PAC to avoid the FEC restrictions.

Publicly traded companies are commonly referred to as private in the context of whether an entity is government or private, not specifically meaning that they’re privately owned. Context is key.

Pretty much. I think if they tried to help a specific candidate by burying a bad story about them then that can be considered a campaign contribution or something which has limits, but just generally suppressing conservative stories is their right as a private company.

But that’s why you meet them in person with online dating, so you can try to figure out if they’re creepy, just like with offline dating. Any way you approach dating, you still have to meet in person if you want to try to notice red flags outside of a text-based conversation. No matter what though, you still don’t…