The mask is off.

… All of us? That’s like a societal problem. In the most abstract sense, bad people do bad things for personal benefit and are rewarded. Are you proposing a solution to it?

Well… it keeps working, so why would they do anything else?

Crazy how much they’re talking about him like he was the last conservative statesman, like he wasn’t a corrupt partisan oligarch willing to murder for his own personal profit. Like, he didn’t become a better person, that’s just how bad the Trump era has gotten.

She learned this lesson, but is she actually a better person? Is she rethinking all of her odious stances and actions? I’m ready to applaud someone becoming a better person, even if she still has work to do on herself, but I’m also skeptical of any politician who sees the writing on the wall and makes a strategic course correction.

Again, I didn’t accuse you of shit. I said pedophile enablers are bad people, and you volunteered to be offended. That’s on you if you felt accused of being shitty. If that’s what you’re about, then I really don’t care what you think of what I said.

I didn’t accuse you of anything. I said people who defend pedophiles are bad people. You jumped in to be like “No, we’re not!” If what I said offended you because I said I don’t like pedophile enablers (or pedophiles), then that’s you telling on yourself.

Ok, you caught me. I’m prejudiced against pedophiles and pedophile enablers, and I’m not sorry. If that offends you, I assume you’re a member of one of those two groups, and I don’t want to continue talking with you. I suppose that’s a sort of bigotry, but I’m not really worried what you think or what offends pedophiles and pedophile enablers.

I’m not suggesting you’re doing it specifically. I’m saying generally if you feel the need to make that distinction in your normal day to day life, you’re almost certainly a sexual predator.

Yeah, if you’re quoting the DSM V to defend yourself as technically not a pedophile, then yes you’ve crossed the rubicon of decency.

This is one of those technical distinctions where if you’re making the distinction, you’re already on the wrong side of everything.

Was he the one who was a piece of shit? Or was that Crick?

Yep, it’s the “probably” that creates the ethics conundrum. We won’t know how to improve the process without testing the process, and we cannot ethically create “test” humans like that scene in Alien Resurrection where all the failed Sigourney clones are sitting in jars, suffering and begging for death.

What? In my metaphor, Democrats are the nets made of sometimes poop, and Republicans are the turds. Was that not clear?

Yeah, sure. Gather the guillotine and meet me in the town square.

Look, if you’re scooping turds out of a punch bowl, and the only tool you have is a net that might be made of turds, then you can either keep scooping or you can throw away the whole bowl of punch. You don’t just give up and drink the punch because it’s all the same. One is a turd in the punchbowl. The other is a mechanism for removing the turds, but it’s also probably a turd. Doing something is still doing something, even if the punch is still shit.

“No one will ever replace my husband, but…”

-words uttered by no faithful widow, ever.

Those kids are not pure enough for his constituents. He will deliberately lose custody and then whine ahout how the system is biased against fathers.

“Is that right? I had heard an alternate theory…”

You’re definitely wrong, and I know more about this than you do.

Nah, the hairs don’t cooperate. If I cut away all the curly strands that stick out, I have no beard.