Lurker > Anteaterking

To be fair, women do this too, and I'm just like, do you not get the implications of you touching me indefinitely

Better chance I land a winner randomly than picking numbers based off digits in that pop into my head.

why do you assume everybody should know who you are?

I'll never get the whole 'I'm not paying for other people's healthcare' argument, because unless you're sat on piles of cash to pay for all your healthcare needs out of pocket, insurance works the exact same way.

He chose BOTH so that the lions and wolves had to fight over him, and he escaped during the fight

My only question is why are these not considered part of the "initial requirements"?

Like, are your examples different than someone trying to fnd different analogies, data/analysis, and ways to communicate an issue to someone to switch them from indifference or hostility to being a supporter?
Is it bad to tailor a meta-narrative through multiple different avenues.

thats moving the goalpost it sounds like

I'm not sure exactly, but it reminds me a bit of how concern trolls operate. Especially the example about the movie.

rationalization

Thing is, it's not just "walk away and pay $1B." It's basically the penalty he has to pay IF he literally has no way to buy the company (essentially, if he couldn't come up with the money / couldn't get the credit). He can't actually just walk away and pay it.

If all he had to do to leave the contract was pay $1B he would've done it a month or so ago.

Twitter has him by the balls on several issues, but the biggest one is that he signed several clauses that essentially said he wouldn't hold them liable even if the information they gave him was false. So to turn around and claim that Twitter has more bots than he expected would have already been a flimsy excuse, but to also be bound by this clause means he's flailing.

Yeah, when you're that rich fines need to be a %. Getting fined 20% would hurt way more than 1 bil.

A bit of both. Sunak as Chancellor and Javid as Health Secretary were classes as "Cabinet Ministers" - they had major jobs that were considered a part of the innermost circle of government - they'd be analogous to the SoD.

Other Ministers were in charge of departments but not considered as "major" - they're Ministers of State, but on a tier lower than Secretaries of State, while other resignations still were Parliamentary Secretaries, the third tier who, work in Ministers of State's departments.

All are - and continue to be - elected MPs and hold a seat in Parliament, represent a constituency, carry a parliamentary vote etc., but they no longer have a role in Johnson's government.

So Johnson still has a clear majority in Parliament (not that they still support him), that hasn't changed, but until these roles are filled in the coming days, he effectively doesn't have a functioning government. I believe there's something like 170-180 governmental positions across the various tiers, so roughly a quarter have resigned over the last 30 hours (some, admittedly, replaced already).

Just a matter of appointing another MP to the position. The people resigning aren't quitting their job as MP, they're still in Parliament, they're just standing down from their governmental roles.

as tonight my neighbors will once again be shooting into the air scaring the s*** out of my dog and waking me up yet again.

Eh, I think Babylon Bee has some nice edginess to it; it's certainly a lot more countercultural than the Onion these days, although the latter has its gems too.

https://babylonbee.com/news/woman-starting-to-think-company-offering-to-kill-her-kid-doesnt-have-her-best-interests-at-heart

Haven't heard anything about this since idgaf about Buzz Lightyear or Tim Allen, what did he do to get replaced?

The fact that the system is set up so that there's only ever two realistic outcomes, neither of which ever actually gives a s*** about people, is very sus... that's hardly unique to 2020, though.

gamefaqs jail i meant

i have trouble spelling purgatory

The simple fact of the matter is so: you shouldn't wish the average person loses money.

It's a very simple, very easily understood concept that seems to fly over people's head in this very topic. Regular people refers to people who are, you know, not rich or wealthy or well off that put money into crypto as an investment hoping to make more money. No different from the average Joe that puts it into stocks or gambles with hopes of getting more money so they can be better off. It's an addictive mindset.

You do not, in ANY way, shape, or form, have to shill for crypto. I don't see what people misunderstand about this. Everyone acts like every human being involved needs to shill for it to actually participate, like it's part of your job. Most people do NOT. I've never once shilled for ANY sort of crypto, nor did I ever advise anyone to put their life savings into crypto or anything of the sorts...yet I'm apparently a scammer for just putting money into it(and apparently creating it, which is news to me, but that's beside the point).

It's absurd. You're using the ides that everyone involved in the crypto sphere is some predatory monster that just scams and swindles people. Not everyone does. And yes, f*** people who do that. But I am not talking about them.

At all.

Hell, are you gonna start throwing s*** at the people that took their lives when Luna crashed? Is that next in the 'duh, I hate crypto, I hope people lose money!' train?

f***. Off.

Show some f***ing empathy.

To earn what money, exactly? The money they put into the crypto? Because, generally, when you put money into something, it's best to assume(unless you won the lottery) that the average Joe earns their money, yes.

I put money into crypto and I earned every cent that I put into it.

Now what you're implying is that people that earned money via crypto are bad people, which is dumb but hardly the point I, myself, was making.

I am talking about the people who lose their money that they put into crypto, not earned money.

So let me get this straight. You feel zero sympathy for people who could have been possibly taken advantage of? You feel zero sympathy simply because crypto is a thing, and for no discernable reason, you must hate everyone involved in the sphere of 'crypto'? Even if they were taken advantage of?

The lack of empathy from this topic, and even the lack of understanding of words written in my posts, is truly, truly astounding. I've never seen people so heartlessly throw people's feelings away with zero empathy due to something so simple as crypto. Ugh.

Not really... There are plenty of days that people don't get off... If you want to be mad at someone, you'd have to be mad at the employers...

I mean the name is kinda lackluster since it hinges on the literal day its celebrated instead of anything else. Which I dont think other holidays do.

I remember my Grandfather once noting that he almost never got Veterans day off.

I dont really gaf, but these people should be shorting Bitcoin if theyre so certain it will fail. Then they would at least have a stake in it. Otherwise theyre no better than your standard s***poster.

The people that get their wallets "hacked" are just giving their seed phrases away

People buy stocks with the belief they can sell it for more later.

People buy baseball cards with the belief they can sell it for more later.

People buy paintings with the belief they can sell it for more later.

Are these all scams as well?

Yea I don't really understand the name, especially since they are conservative and I assume Christian and or have a Christian audience