This is why I only ever get the creamy peanut butter and not the kind with peanut chunks in it.

I mean, the guy is a lawyer, I’m not sure I can think of a profession with a more “generic person in a formal but not fancy outfit” stereotype than that.

Anxiety and, due to a manufacturing bug or something, a second anxiety instead of something else.

I sometimes wonder if this Luigi business has caused any trouble for Nintendo’s pr people. The notion seems kinda funny somehow.

If porn becomes a political issue (because one political group is far more likely to support it’s prohibition than others), then technically, couldn’t it be argued that creating and sharing it has political value as a protest of the effort to ban it, and therefore that it has political value inherently?

Eh, in this specific case I don’t think china’s economic system has anything to do with it, I think it’s more just making fun of Trump’s ineptness at dealing with a rival power.

You’re reading what I said as literally the complete opposite to what I said. What I was saying was that the anti-car movement is generally fine with things like delivery vehicles (and emergency vehicles for that matter), because those things are a small percentage of the vehicles on the road. Hence “the point is not literally zero motorized road vehicles”.

The point is to make car use unnecessary for the average person, and create and promote safe and comfortable alternatives to driving. Saying “You should not have to drive to reach your place of employment, or the grocery store” is not even close to “get rid of fire trucks and ambulances”. Declaring them the same is little more than making a strawman.

Alls well until someone invites a kingsnake

Oh, but he does, the scale of the US and the interconnectedness of the world mean that he fucks over people around the globe, to varying degrees.

ornithopters arent exactly new

The vast majority of cars on the road are not delivery vehicles, bringing them up is irrelevant. The point is not “literally zero motorized road vehicles should enter city limits”

Its called “New England” for a reason.

It’s not really true that they have no ethics though, if it was, it’d be a simpler problem, because they’d presumably just care about reducing unpleasant consequences to themselves and as such a legal deterrent should be effective. The issue is that they have different ethics, which are misaligned with everyone else’s and so result in conflict when they stubbornly refuse to do something that everyone else perceives as a no-brainer. It isn’t like the church gets some material gain out of keeping confession secret.

To be fair, the issue isn’t so much the person admitting things being protected by being part of the church, but if a third party not associated with law enforcement can be compelled to say to said law enforcement about the things said to them. Honestly I think I get the arguments on both sides of this one, it’s not great to legally compel people to say things, especially when saying those things is directly in violation of their sense of ethics, and it’s also not great to just not do anything when made aware of something like child abuse. I think that a law like this is unlikely to help much though: if the church caves, then it seems unlikely that people would be willing to admit to these things anymore anyway, at least to priests, and if they don’t, these guys seem to believe that the consequences of following the law are worse than breaking it, and so it seems unlikely to do much more than occasionally send a priest to jail when it can be proven that they were told of something and didn’t report it.

If any are, I bet crows are among them.

Shouldn’t the raptors cancel though?

I’d rather not create thought crimes, or give the government a vague label to slap on any group of people they want to criminalize.

While that certainly doesn’t speak well for him, wouldn’t it be more of a surprise at this point if they chose a pope that couldn’t be described that way? This is the catholic church we’re talking about.

It depends, I think, on if that thing should make them uncomfortable. Making someone uncomfortable because you’re acting threatening or something is a bit different than making someone uncomfortable because they have unreasonable standards.