Thevenin

But we know what it really is all about - selling more cars.

It isn't even about selling more cars at this point, it's about selling securities. Their market cap dwarfs their total sales. Their P/E ratio is 67.67x, meaning they could sell cars for 67 years and still not make as much money as their stocks are worth today.

The real product is the rising stock price. The factories are just a front.

Not gonna lie, that was my first thought when seeing the news. The only legitimate course for absolute power is to destroy itself.

Gotta do the same for the senate and state legislatures (including governors). Redrawing state lines is not simple.

Maybe THIS will get the Dems to ditch the filibuster and pack the court. Of course, that would require the Democratic party as a whole to show some fight, something they refuse to do for some reason.

To pack the court, Democrats need to secure:

• A House + Senate majority (something they haven't had since 2009-2011)
• A wide enough majority in both that no small caucus could hold the vote hostage for a personal agenda (something they haven't had since Jimmy Carter)
• A president with a platform built on disruptive change rather than stability (which they haven't had since FDR)
• A plan to keep Republicans out of office permanently so that they can never wield this new power in retaliation (even Lincoln messed up on that one)

They need more than just a git-r-dun attitude. Remaking the SCOTUS (rather than waiting it out) means throwing the old government away and starting over.

Thanks for the analysis and insight!

I found at least one of the posts, and you're right, that's not really what impressed them. It just stuck with me because I'm a hardware girl.

I'd believe it because I remember the same being true for TikTok.

I don't have the links on me right now, but I remember clearly that when tiktok was new, engineers trying to figure out what data it collected found that the app could recognize when it was being observed, and would "rewite" itself to evade detection.

They noted that they'd never seen this outside of sophisticated malware, and doubted that a social media company had the resources to write such a program.

You know, it's always bothered me that we put so much stock in debates.

The ability to verbally humiliate your opponents is not a good indicator of the ability to recognize good policy.

Biden and Trump are not equivalent.

To convince us that Democrats and Republicans are equivalent, you must first explain why LGBT+ equality, workers' rights, freedom of religion, the ability to vote, and the actual existence of science are all insignificant.

In hot weather, I use silica gel neck wraps, which slowly release water to keep you cool (if soggy). I really want to try making an equivalent out of sodium sulphate gel and see how it compares.

Supremacist worldviews are intolerant and do not deserve tolerance. The question at hand is whether or not OP's assertions of gender-based divinity are tantamount to supremacist ideology, such as when a cult leader claims their followers (or perhaps descendants of an ancient lineage) are inherently superior.

Also, OP might just be a troll. Remember attack helicopters? Same vibes here.

Good luck, and I do not envy your responsibility in moderating this thread.

There appear to be some logical leaps and conclusion-shopping going on here, so I'm going to try to identify them systematically.

Capitalization of pronouns in the English language is used to denote divinity or royalty. If I refer to Jehovah with a small-h "he," I haven't misgendered him, I have blasphemed. I don't intentionally misgender people (even fictional ones), but I regularly blaspheme gods. I'm an atheist, it's what we do.

Being a man doesn't make one part of the patriarchy and doesn't confer superiority. Being divine ipso-facto makes you superior -- both socially and inherently. As I reject the notion that some people are inherently superior to all others, I blaspheme cult leaders who claim to be gods, demigods, or incarnations thereof, and I refuse to give reverence to prophets and monarchs who claim proximity to the divine. I believe this makes the world a better, less exploitative place.

I also see capitalized pronouns used (infrequently) in BDSM. Specifically, it is how some subs refer to their doms when in some extreme forms of 24/7 power exchange relationship. That's okay, but as with other BDSM activities, power exchange never includes people who didn't consent to be part of it, and consent is never obligatory. Doms who attempt to extend their authority beyond the confines of a scene are swiftly ridiculed or ostracized for consent violation.

So for anyone to make the claim that capitalized pronouns should be respected by everyone, they must first make the case that divinity is a gender. Second, they must make the case that associating with the divine does not denote inherent superiority. Third, they must make the case that compulsory use of capitalized pronouns is not compulsory submission that would violate consent.