While acknowledging that he was a terrible person and that these phonies are terrible people for celebrating him, who exactly decides who among is irredeemable trash who deserves only to be thrown away?

This deserves to be the top comment.

This guy wasn’t a “beautiful person”. He was a disgusting person. You can acknowledge this reality while mourning the person he could never be. I can’t find it in me to celebrate a death, certainly not a murder. How the fuck could I possibly celebrate it and so elevate his killers,…

“I do not believe in potential” is a hell of a fucking thing to say.

Wouldn’t it be better to say that potential is not something to be rewarded or celebrated?

“And a preemptive “Fuck you” to any judgy millennials, who grew up with the internet.”

Wait, what? Have you never heard of Rule 34?

Show me the Millennials who haven’t jacked it to a cartoon character, and I’ll show you the next generation of Catholic monks.

“I can pretend that’s not true and not be able to ask him questions or I can continue to aks questions.”

Umm, yes. I know I answered my own question. It was rhetorical.

I mean, didn’t the whole opioid crisis come about *because* the medical community is just as racist as the general public? Blacks dodged that bullet—you know, in exchange for many of them walking around with untreated chronic pain because docs think that they’re just drug addicts, or that their blackness gives them…

BLAMMO!

Regardless what you might think about the OP’s points on this particular thread, are you seriously going to hold it against a person that they were wrong and have since admitted they were wrong?

Is there NO room for growth whatsoever?

If not, what the FUCK is the point of any of this?

You may as well tell everyone to…

Quaid...

Quaid... start the reactor...

Free Marrrrrrs.

Well, true, but “bodyslam” is also a weird way to describe grabbing someone, pushing them down and punching them, but that’s the term everyone used to describe Greg Gianforte’s assault of Ben Jacobs last year. If I’ve learned nothing else from the most recent election cycle, it’s that no one who makes their way into…

Ahhh, okay. Thanks. That makes a lot of sense, then. Sorry, I’d only ever heard “narc” used in the sense of an informant or LEO. For a moment, I was wondering if you meant a drug addict.

I can’t say I understand your situation, but I empathize. I have a close friend with a toxic, narcissistic mother, and the effects…

To be fair, the original article contained only a little editorializing; it primarily reported the facts, while showing obvious but not exactly fierce bias toward Winslow and his lawyer’s claims. The commenters were far, far more indignant than the author was. But still, they jumped the gun on it by judging it to be…

He clearly has a “type”, but it’s not hard to imagine the cold, predatory thinking that might go into this too: older women are weaker and more vulnerable, so why not target them?

What do you mean by “narc”?

It’s an honest expression of the author’s thoughts and feelings, and the day makes them rise to the surface. If you have a good relationship with your father, shouldn’t this make you all the more grateful for it?

It’s the perfect time for it, and no one is making you read it.

I lose my temper and vent on Internet strangers too much as it is. I’m trying to be a little more measured.

Can you give a few examples of that?

I get it. Your post is ironic. You’re only pretending not to have actually read the article.

The article specifically states that these “hot” states have laws permitting exemptions for non-medical reasons. The “clear” states have anti-vaxxers, but exemptions are only permissible for medical reasons. The article also mentions upticks in California in supposed medical exemptions, implying that anti-vaxxers…