Isn’t the title of this article basically saying “stick to sports”? I thought we decided it was dumb to tell people shut up about things that aren’t related to their occupation.

Except this isn’t deep red territory, and most voters in GA-6 are moderate Republicans. Oh, but wait I’m sure they would vote for a Marxist.

Bernie did what he could to sabotage the Democrats like he always does: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/20/bernie-sanderss-strange-behavior/?utm_term=.0a6052cf79d4

What’s stubborn about it? Did you expect white people to magically morph into a different race overnight?

Oooh you’re gonna get crapped on for that (fairly obvious comment)

That is an unreasonably expansive definition of racism compared to the dictionary definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

What if it is being used by a journalist who is reporting on someone else using the word? In that context it is factually accurate for them to print the word in full, because the user of the word did not say “n-word”. Should the journalist sacrifice accuracy because you will reliably shoot the messenger?

You’re shooting the messenger. Maher said the full word, and the full word is what is at issue here. It’s childish to insist that people use the euphemism when the conversation is about the legitimacy of the word itself. What do you think people think of when they see the term “n-word” written down? The next thought…

Suppose somebody was, in good faith, just asking questions, and not “just asking questions”. If asking a question automatically makes you suspicious, then how are people supposed to have conversations? Or challenge ideas?

I appreciate what you’re doing, but I think you’re mistaking this forum for a place where people can have intelligent conversations.

If the only possible atonement for a mistake, in your view, is for someone to voluntarily destroy their own career and go away forever, then you can fuck off.

But he did definitely say “nigga” without the R. Your claim is patently false.

But it’s not being presented as opinion in this article. The headline phrases it thusly:

What if this hypothetical player’s cleat actually does have turf stuck in it? Should he avoid addressing this problem lest you accuse him of blaming his cleats for all his failures?

> The only reason he can’t outright blame it is because he still lost after turning it down.

> What do you think is going through his head?

That still doesn’t mean he’s blaming it for his loss. You’re putting words in his mouth, and now that he has corrected you, you’re still using the same misleading headline claiming he’s blaming the resolution. What is this?

No, liberals didn’t want her to win because she was a “neo-liberal” or some shit. And they were sad about the fact that Bernie got fewer votes in the primary, or as they call it “the primary was rigged”.

Sounds like gender discrimination.

You could make this case for basically every IPhone feature.