I’m annoyed by it saying he got ‘slightly less’ that the six years prosecutors wanted. 40 months is 3 1/3 years. That’s not slightly less than six years, that’s almost half.

That was Randy Pitchford, CEO of Gearbox. He has his fair share of controversial statements, but I don’t recall him ever defending CSAM.

Western intervention in regime change will kill far more Iranians than doing nothing. I could be wrong about that, but the West does not have a good track record.

I think it’s also important to note that the current Iranian regime took power from the brutal dictator that was installed by western powers who overthrew a democratic government.

I sympathise with the Iranian people who are suffering. I just don’t see a way to intervene that won’t make things worse.

Dear god! Who sent him .

It’s a reference to the “Always has been” meme.

When I said the law is selective in enforcement I meant the system of law. The courts, law enforcement, and political “tough on crime” attitudes. That is very much on me for the lack of clarity and I apologise for it.

The perpetuation and propagation of a fundamentally corrupt and unfair system does not require everyone that upholds it to be corrupt, it needs only for them to be willing to participate in it. Perhaps they don’t see the fundamental inequality, or maybe they believe they can reform it from the inside. I don’t think the system can be reformed enough to be truly just and fair. I think it needs to fundamentally rebuilt.

In the UK the system of law is the same one that oversaw the enforcement of serfdom and of slavery. It is a system where judges can enforce arbitrary rules of conduct and dress in ‘their’ courtroom. A system where judges are too often treated with deference instead of scrutiny, despite blatant bias towards upholding the status quo.

It’s distinctly possible that I’m being a naive idealist, and that this is as good and fair as the system can be. It’s entirely possible that my ideal system is entirely impossible. It’s just that I want to hope for a better world, and I have too much doubt in the capability of reforming things.

“The purpose of a system is what it does.”

You are right. Laws are universal and apply equally to everyone. The problem is the systems that exist to create and apply those laws. There are far too many cases of the law being selective in who it protects and who it punishes for me to believe that it upholds fairness. I also don’t believe it’s a fundamental human failing, I think it’s functioning exactly as its corrupt creators intended.

Yes but the payments are made to the child’s guardian. Meaning that a victim of rape will be forced to make payments to their abuser directly because of the rape, which I think is morally indefensible.

I wonder if that library is working on getting new branches.

I want to violently disagree because I love onions… But I’ve never tried Shallots, so I can’t say you’re wrong.

I’m not rewording anything. I’m stating a disagreement with your wording which I think implies intent where there may be none.

I disagree. This is what protest-non-voters failed to vote against.

Saying that they voted for this is implying that it is what they wanted. It is not the same thing as not carefully considering the potential outcomes. I agree that they bear some responsibility for what’s happening because of their failure to engage in the best course of action to prevent it. I do also think it is very much an inaccurate statement to say that it is what they voted for.

Put simply, intent matters. It doesn’t matter if the material outcome is the same.

How about we forget the sex and just snuggle while I feed you treats, give you headpats, and call you a good girl/boy.

But then the dad gives him another condom and a wink.

I wouldn’t mind having some Chinese students expose me to their backdoor, unless they’re too young of course.

Well then I guess I’ll be playing with rocks and sticks. After all, sticks and stones may break the bastards bones.

Short answer yes with an if. The long answer is no with a but.

I’d say it’s racist if someone is complaining about illegal immigrants alongside a general contempt of ‘foreigners’ and not paying attention to the details of why it’s illegal for them to migrate the way they did and what options are available for legal migration.

It’s not racist to be opposed to those who are in violation of the law, as that is not a racial or ethnic classification. But it is important to be inquisitive as to why the law is the way that it is, and be willing to consider the possibility that just because something is against the law does not mean that it should be. Law has long been used as a tool of systemic oppression and racism, as well as many other horrific abuses inflicted on people.

I quite agree. Personally I use Main/Secondary, I find it does away with the problematic terminology while needing no changes in acronyms.

Are you seriously drawing a parallel between putting hardcore bdsm content in a kids movie and a kids film that features a same sex couple!?

Having a same sex couple in a kids film is no more inappropriate than portraying an interracial couple. I find it ridiculous to say it’s inappropriate to portray something simply because it’s uncommon.

Incidentally, the equivocation of LGBTQ+ portrayals in media with that of explicit pornographic content is a position held by bigots who wish to erase the existence of non-heterosexual people.

Subnautica’s art direction does give me Metroid Prime vibes.