Sigilos

Having worked stock in a grocery store, this is part of it. After asking alot of different people at different levels, the consensus is that shelf space is also paid for by many brands, and what space goes to who is decided way above the store level. So once in a while the stockers get paperwork that moves a ton of stuff around, and no one who works in that location has the authority to say no. Sure, sometimes a manager will do that anyway, but they always have a reason, and it’s usually something about the reality of the store configuration, like not putting too many cold items near warm areas, to keep humidity down and reduce spoil.

They don’t, that’s just where they store snacks. Human clothes fit except the bust line, so it became analogous to the hoodie pocket for snek ladies.

Nothing within the known universe moves faster then light, but the universe itself expands faster then light travels within it.

Elephants and submarines. Can’t wait for next update to drop, the devs are getting more creative with this!

This is great!

The incorrect assumption here is that disbelief is an active state. Denouncment and denial may be active states of thought, but disbelief is a passive state. Like the way that on and off are an active and passive state, respectively. The argument that disbelief implies the denial of something that therefore must exist to be denied at all is inherently flawed by this assumption. If I, being in a state of ignorance of subject “x”, would have neither belief nor disbelief in “x”, but total unawareness of "x"s potential existence as a subject. To then be told by an outside perspective that “x” exists and I must believe in that existence without any proof of the claimed state of “x”, I could choose to continue without further consideration of “x” and my existence would continue without belief or disbelief in “x”, only knowledge of that concept existing for outside perspectives. However, I could more easily explain this reasoning to others with the simple statement “I do not believe in “x”.” My statement would be reductive and simplistic, yes, but would do nothing to prove that “x” must exist and hold my belief because I have any knowledge of its concept.

The claim must be proven by the one making it, not the one being told of it.

But all jokes aside, do give back by seeding your torrents. Some stuff is hard to get complete copies because of leechers.

Beard oil. It exists, it is amazing, and it stopped my itching. I comb a little into my beard every one or two days, takes like 5 minutes if I go slow.

Jokes on you, the US doesn’t understand price by Liter, only Dollars per freedom unit!

/s …?

Change the flat tire on my bike and go for a ride with my son.

I understand. I’m ND so it’s hard for me to pickup social cues as it is, text makes it especially hard to figure out emotion or intention at times.

Thank you again for helping me understand a little better. 😁

This is why I asked if anyone could clarify for me. Thank you for explaining in a more natural manor, the language used to write these proposals is often confusing for me.

With your clarification, it definitely seems to me like the protections in place should stay there. Maybe there are issues with some of these companies, but I don’t think removing these particular protections will change the issues I see, just stifle open speech.

This is exactly why I asked if anyone could clarify for me, I didn’t understand what was really being put on the political table here. Thank you for elucidating, the language used to write these proposals is often confusing for me. I understand that’s often done purposely by the people submitting such legislation, so I usually have to find someone who can understand it better then I can.

Answering my own question, it seems that “Sunset acts” are a common occurrence in legislation that end programs and activities that have more or less run their course or stopped being effective or meaningful.

The reason this Sunset Act is being mentioned is…

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act was created to protect early internet platforms from lawsuits over user-generated content, a safeguard widely seen as essential to the internet’s development. As social media companies have become some of the nation’s most powerful and influential corporations, critics have questioned whether that protection should remain.

… so my understanding is that this Sunset will remove some outdated protections from social media platforms, effectively forcing them to adapt with better policies and practices or open themselves up to litigation.

Since the text of this bill almost exclusively “strikes” sections of other, preexisting legislation, I can’t quite tell what it really does without trying to locate and read each of the other pieces of legislation. Does anyone have a quick summery of what effect this proposal would have if passed?

Dont fuck the cheese, it’s for eating

Elite soldier in ancient China

The statistical inclusion of fascists in the mention of voluntary military recruits absolutely is reality, having spoken with the family I have who are currently serving, who are seeing and speaking with the new recruits coming in to the armed forces. It’s a topic of discussion at family functions. You trying to discredit my point of view by attacking my motivation is a poor but recognized debate tactic. My personal view of the military is not a factor in my original statement anyway. Do try to stay on the point, even of you fail to properly read and understand the statement. I have great respect for the people who serve the country through inclusion in the armed forces, and their willingness to put themselves in the way of harm to provide a better life for the people that are not.

As for your second argument, the word nazi is not some slur I’m using against a group I don’t like, it’s a very real state of political view that absolutely survives and arguably thrives in many places in the U.S. I may not use the term ‘Neo-Nazi’ to discriminate between past and present, but that doesn’t lessen the justification for the application of that label to those who espouse the same beliefs as historical Nazism. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, being loose in my use of the word Nazi. I am refusing to allow apologists to discourage the use of a term that rightfully brings to mind the full impact of the beliefs held by those to whom the term Nazi applies to. I was taught by my grandfather what a Nazi is and why men of character cannot accept such views to become enshrined in the hearts or heads of those around him.

I didn’t call a soldier a nazi, I said that Nazis wanted to play soldier and do Nazi shit. The reality is that recruitment is up, and part of that is going to be white fascist leaning boys who want to have a gun and be told to use it.

I have family in every branch of the military, and have heard the stories from them directly of meeting up with far too many of these kinds of people.

I also had family who fought the nazis, we visited his grave this past memorial day at a national cemetery.

I know exactly what I said, and what kind of people are currently in power in the USA.

You mean Nazis who want to do government sanctioned Nazi shit? No surprise there