Maybe, but calling them murderers because they support a specific interpretation of the Second Amendment that puts guns in the hands of mass murderers even after multiple massacres of children because “your kids’ lives don’t trump my Second Amendment rights” seems entirely fair. Maybe even a little generous, if I’m…

I think we’re all winners after seeing that.

Okay, first, let’s start with the most basic: “He’s crusading against constitutional rights”. No. He’s not. The idea that the 2nd Amendment referred to some unfettered and fetishized right to buy, own, and carry as many guns as you were physically capable of doing is an interpretation that dates back to the ancient…

The battle cry of the intellectually outmatched.

Maybe he thinks saving children from being shot is more important? God knows that the people he’s talking about don’t, so maybe it’s good that someone does.

They grew up arguing with trolls and shitlords on the Internet. It’s like they’ve been training for decades for exactly this fight without even knowing it.

I used to joke about making a Silver Age-style comic book of the Life of Jesus. One of the covers would have Jesus held by Roman Centurions, with a big thought bubble over his head saying, “One of my disciples has betrayed me...BUT WHO?!”

That’s the kind of joke that should really please...

There aren’t those arguments because the people using those words just use them. They’re insensitive to most arguments about racial slurs, but even the worst asshole knows better than to use the N-word when non-racists can hear.

They want to say it because they want to use it as a slur against black people. They’re constantly rules-lawyering to try to create a situation where it’s acceptable for white people to say, because once they get that, then they can use it all the damn time and present it in a context that they can semi-plausibly…

Makes sense. The fifth or sixth one is always the “last one ever”, to capture the “you were there at the beginning, be there at the end” mentality. The next one is always the “we’re starting fresh and it’s going to be so new and fresh and fresh and new now!” one.

Who’s to say you want to do this to kill anyone? It’s a moose with spoons glued to its antlers. You’ve talked to that moose, you’ve explained to that moose that the Trumps are important people and the last thing you want is for them to be gored to death in horrible, agonizing fashion. If the moose fails to understand…

So wait, you want to glue spoons to a moose’s antlers and set him loose on the Trump family?

Over/under on Trump nominating his horse to a Cabinet position is at 9 months.

The counter-argument is that Facebook was always going to make it as difficult as possible to protect your information, as easy and enticing as possible to expose it, and lie about the risks of doing so, because that’s literally their business model.

None of them are equal. I checked.

It’s kind of a shame, since a discussion of the larger issue “How far do I need to go to be a good sub?” is probably more handy than a recommendation of which chastity devices are most effective.

Well, I certainly wouldn’t say it was solely on the top—if the bottom isn’t communicating anything between silence and safewording, it’s not the top’s job to read their mind. But the way that was phrased, “she said we didn’t have to do this if we could find another way to accommodate her wants”, tells me that he’s…

I cannot believe I’m hearing this!

This actually came up toward the end of the Watergate scandal, too. When Haldeman and Erlichmann found out Nixon was resigning, they tried to persuade Alexander Haig to get them a meeting with Nixon so they could discuss pardons (to “spare the country the divisiveness of a trial”, was their excuse).