This entire premise is a fucking stoner debate but in late-capitalist America I think it’s worth having and I’m trying to ignore things I really should be doing. The fundamental difference here (which I noticed in that you’re talking only in terms of what you have and what can be taken from you) is that the premise…

Well it is a both sides issue, especially considering the people who are running “both sides” (looking at you Chuck). The way I view it is thus.

YYY can’t just come along and declare it’s not mine anymore because reasons and start staying there without my permission.

Technically even under our own laws you can’t own land, you can only own the rights to use land. Which is a legitimate difference and one worth noting in a society where a smaller and smaller amount of wealthy individuals are consolidating land, wealth and power as suits their own needs. And though I can see how one…

It’s racist not to allow people to sit and eat at your diner? It’s racist to give people a water fountain? Oh wow, this is fun. I love to racism, bro.

Because you haven’t grappled with the only point that matters; Ocasio-Cortez did not want media to be at this event because many people there were rightfully concerned that if they officially went on record, the government would detain them, the people they were representing or both.

To be fair, you’re ignoring a bunch of people who are “arguing your point” in order to fuck about on the definition of trolls so...

I still have the question that was raised as a threat by Fox News. There are a number of people who may be vulnerable to government reprisal, most notably from ICE, if they were to attend and speak at a public town hall meeting with media present. Or even if they are representing people who may be targeted. This is…

Do you mean that they canceled the events due to lack of interest? I’m fairly certain that the exact opposite is the case here.

How would you propose people whose very existence makes them targets for government reprisal engage with politicians? I understand your principles, but like the principle that a defendant has the right to face his accuser in open court, there are and should be exceptions to the rule.

“It is not enough for the prosecutor to wave his hands in the air and cry bad things happened to the people of Flint so someone must be held responsible,” Lyon’s charming lawyers said in one filing.

Most of that is absolutely true, and in addition it’s naive to assume that the founders were some monolith when in fact they were every bit as ideologically fragmented as our current politicians are, if not more so. I’m also probably have a less sanguine view of the American Revolution than most people (and probably a…

Considering the extremely small pool of Americans the founding fathers bequeathed the right to vote upon (estimates have it between 18-25% of the population in the late 18th century) that’s not really all that much of a sarcastic statement. I think it’s important to remember that our founders fell far short of their…

You aren’t looking at pictures of them; you’re just reading the words they write.

Yeah yeah yeah, I’m sure you, HAMILTON NOLAN, don’t know who founded Gawker. It was a slick trick posting this under an alias but we all know that this post confirms that HAMNO IS LEAVING

Wait, I thought they already got rid of Denton?

This is Spitefully Turgid Kinja. My favorite Kinja.

I know it’s armchair psychology but I’m willing to bet that an awful lot of lives have been ruined, spent or taken by powerful people with emotionally charged lives. Almost anyone can become a sympathetic figure if you dig deep enough.

Sure they do!