Lurker > adjl

I don't doubt that the average inmate is more stupid than the average voter, but if you're not already basing people's voting rights off of their intelligence, that's not a valid basis for barring felons from voting.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Unbridled9 posted...

I'm curious. What would it take to make something EXPLICITY white? Like, I'm sure a story set in the middle of Africa with everyone dressed in african tribal clothing speaking the native tongue would be considered 'explicitly set in Africa' and people would at least be against a non-african playing the role. So what else does a story that comes from Germany, typically set in a European setting, with kings, queens (both presented in traditionally european manners), dwarves, huntsmen, and witches, with a lead character named 'Snow White', named specifically for her skin tone, need to do to be MORE explicitly white?

Nothing. As I said, that was talking about Princess and the Frog (which was a German fairy tale, but Disney adapted it to be about a black woman in Louisiana). Snow White is explicitly white, I agree.

Unbridled9 posted...

I disagree. Traditions are important for defining who you are as a people and culture and it's important for ensuring a unified identity and stability. Obviously you shouldn't keep them around JUST because and plenty are bad just as plenty are good, but even something small can help foster a sense of unity, stability, and so-forth.

The ones that are good, though, should be kept because they're good, not merely because they are traditions and foster a sense of unity. Uniting over something bad isn't healthy for anyone.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

No, but my sister would have had one if it didn't miscarry.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Because you use social media as a means of informing people what's going on in your life, and a divorce qualifies as a pretty significant event that some people would want to share with their network.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

you are literally describing the opposite of your behavior on this board

Is true. When I think "OhhhJa," I do not think "wow, that guy is so relaxed and never gets offended by anything."

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Fair, next.

Jen0125 posted...

Hope he likes being in prison with the people he put there

There's pretty much no chance he won't end up with special protections, since that's fairly standard for both high-profile cases and cops, but I imagine this is still going to suck for him.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

Regardless, I'll always have the moral high ground over someone telling people to kill themselves. Like... how are you gonna act morally superior to anyone after doing that lmao

Really depends how valid the advice was.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

Oh lawdy... You heard it here, folks, this dude is claiming saying the national anthem leads to Nazis. SMDH

No, he's saying that blindly reciting national anthems with no consideration for whether or not one feels like celebrating the country and punishing people for refusing to go along with said "patriotic" display leads to Nazis. Which isn't overly unreasonable. When you force patriotism on people, that tends to breed nationalism.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

I don't think company employees count.

tony8669 posted...

and sales tripled.

I don't think Ferrero employs enough people for company employee purchases alone to triple Butterfinger sales.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

unless it's baking chocolate, it's supposed to be sweet

There's "this chocolate has been sweetened so it doesn't taste like dirt," and then there's "actual chocolate is the sixth ingredient in this alleged chocolate." Sweetening chocolate is fair game. Passing off chocolate-flavoured sugar as "chocolate" is another matter entirely.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

dvdjedi posted...

Is it really that "patriotic" though? Such blind devotion leads to groups like the Nazis coming to power.

On paper, it's patriotic. In practice, the vast majority of times it's recited are because it's a requirement, rather than out of any personal patriotic sentiment, which is less patriotism and more some kind of weird cult ritual. That said, banning it altogether does amount of banning people from expressing patriotic sentiment when it does actually strike them, so I don't think that's particularly reasonable. Banning its requirement, I can get behind, but not banning the pledge itself.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Pretty sure you've done this one before.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

Umm, those are all the same... some rando I don't care about. Where is my next of kin?

Pretty much this. I can't say I have much of a preference between 8 random strangers. I'd want my kid to go to somebody I knew and trusted already. My dying breath would probably just be something like "help my baby," and hopefully one of them would hold it until the cops showed up to take a statement and transfer the kid to my NoK.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Probably not. I've never been all that enthused by the Mario Golf games, and I don't see that changing here.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

sodium-chloride posted...

it's really funny to see how the people who say COVID is fake or that it's overblown are absolutely terrified about a vaccine that has an even lower rate of having serious side effects.

In some ways, it's consistent. They believe the risk of Covid is so low that the vaccines are much riskier. Of course, the hypocrisy is still there when they mock people for being "afraid" of Covid while being afraid of the vaccines themselves, but there's room to say they're being logically consistent between the two points.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I'll take "Things I have no intention of ever putting in my mouth ever" for $800, Alex.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

CaptainStrong posted...

Because phone cameras are low resolution and have s***ty digital zooming.

The 8-year-old flip phone I got rid of two years ago? Sure. Pretty much any smartphone purchased in the past half decade? Not so much. Digital zoom still sucks, and that's what most of them rely on because it's kinda hard to fit multiple lenses into that kind of form factor, but the resolutions on them are more than high enough to get at least a decent picture, if not one that's as good as what a proper camera can do.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

big bologna noodle

That's my stripper name.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Full Throttle posted...

Do you think Fox News is spreading scare tactics on the vaccines to stop people from getting it?

No, Fox News is regurgitating anti-vaxx fearmongering because they know that's what their audience wants to hear. If being anti-vaxx were the Liberal position on this matter, they'd be fervently in favour of getting the jab. They have no actual attachment to either position, only to showing their base what they want to see.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Marcster1994 posted...

Reese's is still the king of candy, I presume.

I'm not sure when, but at some point, the size of Reese's cups dropped quite significantly. That may just be a Canadian thing, reflecting changes in the costs of ingredients, but they're definitely smaller than they used to be, and I do not approve.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

MeteoricBurst posted...

Woulda been something else if they chose an albino black girl for the role.

That would have been magnificent. Top-tier trolling.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

mooreandrew58 posted...

Thing is they put themselves in that position. Which is a tad different than the government just picking someone and saying they cant vote.

Is it, though? The government decides what the laws are. People, in turn, make choices that may or may not be against the law, depending on what the government has decided. You're unlikely to ever see such extreme examples as making it a felony to register as a Democrat, but there's still plenty of room to influence who's able to vote by influencing what counts as a felony.

Helly's example of weed is a good one, actually: If possessing weed is a felony and felons can't vote, you take away voting rights from a disproportionate number of people that would vote in favour of weed's legalization, effectively silencing one side of the argument on the political stage and giving the lobbyists that want weed to stay illegal even more power to continue profiting from that status quo. Heck, Nixon has been quoted as explicitly saying that he wanted weed to be illegal to discredit the hippies, and heroin to be illegal to discredit the blacks. The natural extension of that is that convicting them of felonies took away their ability to vote against him, effectively removing those populations' viewpoints from the political stage by using a proxy law to silence them.

It's certainly not a matter that's been taken to full dictatorship levels, but there are certainly examples of laws and policies being perpetuated because those that would vote against them have been convicted of felonies for violating them and therefore can't.

mooreandrew58 posted...

Id like them to show they can behave properly in society though.

I understand where this comes from, but realistically, most things that should remain felonies aren't ever going to be voted into being permitted by law just because felons can vote. Murder will always be illegal, even if murderers want that to change. Same with assault, theft, arson, and any of the other clearly bad things people usually think of when they think of "felonies." There's really very little reason to expect that felons voting would be able to meaningfully vote in a way that reflects their "inability to behave properly in society." Meanwhile, the logic opens the door to some very egregious abuses, plus it serves to make felons feel even more ostracized from society and therefore less likely to reintegrate.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

and just looking at the timeline for when the calls started, your claim is beyond disingenuous.

And which timeline would that be? Because this decision pretty clearly states that it was based on his lies surrounding the election, which is adequate basis for disbarring him on its own.

Zeus posted...

ITP: "If everybody just doesn't question the government, everything will be fine!"

That's an attitude that might fly in NK, but this is America.

Questioning the government is fine. Perpetuating a completely baseless lie to such an extent that it motivates an armed insurrection attempt is not.

Zeus posted...

Countless elections have challenged the results afterward, and sometimes those results were reversed.

Those challenges should be supported by evidence. Otherwise it's just the impotent tantrum of a sore loser.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

my taste buds have changed to be so fucking lame

vanilla tastes amazing to me nowadays. fucking VANILLA

Vanilla's a great flavour, though. It gets overshadowed not because it's not good, but because it's a such great base for so many other things.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Arcturusisnow posted...

"Skin as white as snow" What part of that is hard to understand? That would be a white girl.

He was talking about Princess and the Frog, not Snow White. I already said basically the same thing about making Snow White not white.

Arcturusisnow posted...

It's not crap. It's called tradition. You don't break tradition, dipshit. Else you get called out for it.

Tradition for tradition's sake is stupid. "It's tradition" is not a defense of whatever you're discussing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

There's a joke in here about finally figuring out how to uninstall McAfee, but I can't think of a good one.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

JOExHIGASHI posted...

They could use make up

That's an option, but somehow I feel like casting a Colombian-American actress and then making her up to look super-white would end really, really badly.

Unbridled9 posted...

I don't know how much more 'white' you can get for a fairy tale than having it come from Germany.

It isn't explicitly set in Germany (afaik), nobody's specified to be white, there are no cultural references in there that rely on the characters being white... Certainly, the characters are presumed to be white, given the origins (the same can be said of most fairy tales), but there's nothing in there that relies on that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

It's just another politically motivated stunt to punish the losers of an election

Do you really believe that this is because he lost the election and not because he's spent the past year peddling the myth that the election was stolen?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Well the story sounds totally egregious when it sounds like she was suspended from school over this, knowing that bit I still think she shouldn't have been suspended. It is public school and an official extracurricular, if that little post is all she did do deal with the disappointment of her rejection thats fine.

That's fair. I also think it was unreasonable, just not that it was an indefensible infringement of her constitutional rights, which is what an 8-1 SC judgement would suggest.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BlackScythe0 posted...

That was not immediately clear to me.

It's something that's been left out of a lot of the discourse around this. People see "suspended" and immediately jump to being angry about it. Had it been a suspension from school, I'd be absolutely against the decision, since that's infringing on her right to an education (honestly, suspension in general is kind of questionable, whatever the reason, but that's another discussion), but the fact that it was an extracurricular privilege makes it a lot less clear-cut.

Zeus posted...

Hopefully they fire the administrators involved.

If it took the Supreme Court to arrive at an actual decision on the matter, it would be extremely unreasonable to fire administrators that made their decision without that SC decision to guide them. You can't retroactively punish people for breaking rules you made up after the fact. Moving forward, the precedent has been set such that they shouldn't do it again, and any appropriate damages can be claimed, but firing them over it would be an easy wrongful dismissal suit.

Zeus posted...

He's a school employee. The fact that it's an option activity doesn't mean s*** because he's acting as a government employee. If he was an unpaid volunteer, then *maybe* he'd have recourse, although even then he's acting on behalf of the government.

And? Doesn't mean he can't make his own decisions about the people he wants to work with. She has a right to education. She doesn't have a right to be a cheerleader. He can infringe that privilege all he wants, because it's just a privilege.

Zeus posted...

And the complaint against her was complete bulls***, considering nothing she did was particularly excessive.

I'm inclined to agree with that. I can understand why it might have made the coach not want to deal with her anymore, especially if she had a history of attitude problems and that was the last straw (which is purely speculation, I recognize), but booting her off the team for it does seem like a disproportionate response. I just think that's a matter of a coach being unreasonable, though, not one of constitutional rights being violated.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I don't think that's the link you wanted to post.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Sahuagin posted...

in this case though, I think I would say that the problem is that the concept of Snow White is itself racist. the central theme is that she is exceptionally beautiful because her skin is white. that's ok if your personal preference is to be attracted to certain skin tones, but it's not really ok to present one skin tone as being "objectively" most beautiful.

Indeed. As much as this is a case where the character "should" be white, the fact that she "should" be white is because the story it's adapting has inherently racist beauty norms woven into the character's design. Does that mean the story should be retold with somebody that isn't white to push back against those norms? I dunno. I'd see that more as a reason to discard the original story and just do something similar under a different name, but then there's none of the brand recognition that these live-action remakes coast on, so obviously the studio won't do that. Perhaps instead it falls to the audience to realize that Snow White was never a particularly good movie and stop caring about it altogether.

Zeus posted...

At any rate, it's just another one in these oddly racist recastings where studio heads would have been forced to resign if they'd done this to any other race.

What, like that time Tilda Swinton was cast as a Tibetan mystic? Or Scarlett Johansson as a Japanese cop? Whitewashing happens all the time, dude, and nobody resigns over it. This is one of the rare cases of actual reverse whitewashing (that is, changing a character that has a reason to be white to be another race, as distinct from changing the race of a character whose race doesn't matter), and it's just as silly here as the regular variety, but don't act like there are actual consequences for whitewashing.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

"Use the boost to get through!"

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Ogurisama posted...

Only issue i see with an opt out is if you have a medical issue that can be passed on with organ donations (like HIV) and unaware the system is opt out, not in.

In which case A) Your next of kin can give that as a reason not to donate, and B) The doctors tending to you should already be aware of your HIV-positive status and know you can't donate. I actually wouldn't be surprised if being diagnosed with HIV (or a similar blood-borne disease) automatically registers you as a non-donor, and regardless, I'm pretty sure they test for blood-borne diseases before transplanting a donated organ.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

That being said, I'm not really on the school's side here - a public school shouldn't really have the authority to suspend anyone for things they say or do off school grounds.

Important distinction: She wasn't suspended from school, she was suspended from the team she was verbally abusing. The fact that it was an optional extracurricular activity and not a service the school was required to give her makes me lean more in the school's favour. The coach shouldn't have to coach a student that's openly hostile toward them, after all. There's no obligation there to put up with that kind of behaviour.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Eh, this is one I do kind of question. The character's name literally describes how fair-skinned she is. Race isn't particularly important to anything the character does, so nothing's particularly lost by making her non-white, but this is one case where skin colour is a significant element of the character's appearance and casting somebody that isn't white is even more clearly pandering than Disney's usual diverse casting choices are.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

Some states have changed it from opt-in to opt-out to force more people into the program. I think either Jon Stewart or John Oliver was literally advocating for that piece of deception.

"Oh no I have to check a box instead of not checking a box I am so deceived."

Opt-in systems result in a massive number of lost organs due to status quo bias, as people who say they're in favour of organ donation just never feel like taking the step to change their status. Opt-out systems exploit that bias for good. Opting out is a trivial effort, and at least around here, the person's next-of-kin still has the ability to object and prevent their organs from being harvested regardless of their status (which was true under the opt-in system as well). If you want your organs to rot with you, you still very much have that option; nobody's forcing anything.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

It's a tricky question. At one level, yeah, it's bad that people hurt their babies like that. Assigning punishment for it, though, effectively means you're criminalizing alcoholism/drug addiction or forcing certain women to get abortions, and neither is a particularly good way to handle things (especially when so many states are actively trying to make abortions harder to get, so that'd just boil down to punishing addicts for getting pregnant). That's especially true where most of the harm done in the case of FASD happens because of drinking in the first trimester, often before many women even know they're pregnant. In any case, then primary behavioural change you'll see from punishments is alcoholic/drug addicted mothers avoiding medical care (possibly including the delivery itself) for fear of being caught with a FASD/NAD baby, which is just plain dangerous for everyone involved.

Instead, solving this problem has to be focused on helping potential mothers avoid it. Rehab and other addiction supports, subsidies to make birth control more available (to people in general, though especially to people with substance abuse problems), better education around the issue... In general, there's a lot of push to punish mothers that are perceived to have done something wrong (criminal charges for FASD, banning abortions to force them to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term...), but most of that comes from a sense of anger over the perceived wrong, rather than because punishment is actually an effective tool for changing behaviour. Making it easier to not make the mistake, however, does improve that outcome.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Is it the infant that's abstinent? The name of the condition seems contradictory to me since public schooling in the 90's have conditioned me to associate abstinence with not having sex. In which case there shouldn't be an infant.

Abstinence is simply the state of abstaining from something. Colloquially, it's usually talking about sex, and that's the most common context you're going to hear it in, but you can just as easily abstain from meat, or smooth jazz, or cocaine.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

mooreandrew58 posted...

I still dont agree with felons voting. Maybe a process they can go through to get their right to vote back but not simply give it to them

I bet peoples minds would change if they knew just how many Trump supporters are in prison. I personally was shocked how many black inmates wanted Trump to win.

I understand the logic behind not allowing felons to vote, but no matter how you justify it, the bottom line is that banning felons from voting means you have the government deciding who's not allowed to vote for the government. That creates immense potential for corruption and abuse, and because of that I don't think any such ban is reasonable.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

I doubt animal control would have been prepared for something like this. And, honestly, the few times I dealt with my area's animal control, they were absolute shit.

Probably not, but we're talking idealism here. In the real world, I don't think there was ever a chance of the chimp making it out of this alive.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

...and if she was promoting BLM, would you also accuse her of projecting on behalf of her parents?

If somebody can have an opinion for something at age 9, they can have an opinion against it as well. And kids of any age can have opinions.

Generally, yeah. She's 9. Her statement on the matter is not 9-year-old language, and I say this as somebody who was reading at a first-year university level at that age. She's 100% regurgitating what her parents have taught her.

9-year-olds have opinions, those opinions just generally don't involve comments like "King Governor Waltz sitting on his throne watching."

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

Dangerous situation, cop remained calm and tried to help victims first... didn't shoot until had permission and when he did shoot it was clean.

This is what doing your job properly looks like

Pretty much. I don't see how this could have been handled any better, aside from caring for the chimp better in the first place. Under more ideal circumstances, they could have waited for animal control and tranquilizers and all that nice non-lethal stuff, but the victim was injured and unable to receive the medical attention she needed until the chimp was stopped, so there just wasn't time for that.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Smarkil posted...

Yes. A paramedic walking away from their job with a patient in the backseat is definitely the same thing.

Logically? Yeah, it is. Obviously, that's a much more immediate danger than simply not having a riot squad for a few days, but fundamentally, it's a matter of people who have a responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of those under their care shirking that duty as a means of coercing society into giving them what they want. If a riot were to have happened on Friday night, it can be reasonably presumed that the riot force's inaction would have resulted in pretty substantial property damage, injuries, and possibly death, and they took this action knowing full well that the threat of that would help get them what they wanted.

Broadly, collective bargaining works because the employer values the workforce's collective productivity more than they value whatever the workforce's demands will cost. In cases of emergency services, though, that question of productivity and costs moves beyond money and into questions of saving/costing innocent lives. That's not something we want anyone to be bargaining with, so - by necessity - emergency services have limits placed on what sort of job actions they're allowed to take. Otherwise, you'd see the power granted by controlling lives abused by corrupt individuals and forces to effect privileges those emergency services should never have (such as not being charged for committing assault). That corruption is exactly what's happened here, with the entire force resigning to use the threat of innocents in danger to protest their colleague being held accountable for his actions.

The line between ethical collective bargaining and corruption can be fine, sometimes, but when the end goal is something as clearly malicious as preventing a colleague from being charged for a crime he obviously committed, there's little question as to which side it falls on. This was an act of corruption, and that corruption should be met with appropriate legal consequences.

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

After reading your post hes doin the right thing blocking you. Youre a racist. Not Zeus bad but ya got issues.

Oh, he blocked me, which means he decided to keep me from seeing his posts (after ignoring me off and on for a while). The last exchange I remember having with him was one where he tried to claim that the increase in overdose cases in BC over the past year had resulted in more deaths than Covid had (his central argument being that Covid restrictions had done more harm than Covid could have), to which I replied with actual monthly death numbers (which he asked for) that showed that was nowhere close to being the case. Apparently he just got tired of being proven wrong so frequently, so instead of trying to not be wrong, he took away people's ability to see how wrong he was.

Really, I treat it as a compliment. He has explicitly admitted that he is too inferior to ever hope to compete with me. That comparison may not be particularly high praise, but I appreciate the sentiment.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

helIy posted...

a f***ing kick.

That sounds like an interesting maneuver.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

Factorio

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

It's more likely that since the vaccines only passed phase 4 trials for adults that they haven't passed them for children yet

Pretty much. Their recommendation is on the basis that it hasn't been conclusively determined that the vaccines are less risky for children than Covid infection would be. Odds are, they are, since there's no particular reason to expect them to be any riskier for kids than adults, but given the relatively low Covid risk for children, I can see the logic.

That said, I'm not sure how many kids under 12 are even getting vaccinated now, which is the only age group the WHO is advising against (they mention nothing about recommendations for adolescents). I know locally, you can only book appointments for 12+, though I imagine there are provisions for immunocompromised or otherwise extra-vulnerable kids. This seems like a legitimate recommendation (which is a change of pace from what TC has tended to post on the matter), but its practical implications are virtually non-existent (which is perfectly on par with what TC has tended to post on the matter).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Full Throttle posted...

Do you think Tinder is an agreement to Sex?

It's kind of implied that that's the end goal for all involved parties, but that's largely irrelevant, given that sexual consent is not in any way a binding contract. Consent can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason, at which point everyone else involved needs to accept that the non-consenting person doesn't want to have sex anymore and act accordingly.

Full Throttle posted...

After less than 12 hours of that post of her mocking him, she got served yet again by him on a cease and desist letter and she talked to a lawyer who told her it's not slander since she didn't name and shame him.

It probably wouldn't be slander even if she did name him, given that it was true. Proving its truth would be difficult, however, so it's probably best not to test those limits.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Riptor posted...

In an HD world, no DVD can be considered "good" - unless there's no blu-ray version of it.

Sure it can. It just needs to have a good movie on it.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Sadly, most businesses have responded to the CDC's announcement by ditching mask requirements entirely, not by enforcing any sort of vaccine verification. As much fun as ostracizing the people that don't want to contribute to a healthy society would be, I doubt we'll see more than a relatively small handful of events and businesses actually getting on board with that, mostly ones that don't need to worry about making as much money as they can.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

All it takes is one person to interpret the blinking as the light being blocked as it accepts the sacrificed soul. Then they treat it as the Comet HaleBopp and start lining up to be sacrificed to it.

Yeah, I've left it open to see how they choose to respond to it. I think that's a more interesting way to play god than to try to dictate their actions more rigidly.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.