In other news today...
-
You and everybody else.
-
@blakeyrat Just waiting for the japanese film studio that made battle royale to sue bluehole.
-
@blakeyrat Also, there's no reason to either expect or demand equal outcome. Even in the extreme cases if either 100% of money was made by girls (because guys like to watch them), or 100% of money was made by guys (say, because they play differently), there wouldn't be anything wrong with that.
-
Looks like net neutrality doesn't cause cancer
-
@timebandit said in In other news today...:
Looks like net neutrality doesn't cause cancer
It causes cancer, just not enough to not not not have it..
-
@blakeyrat said in In other news today...:
Surprised it took this long, frankly.
That's hilarious. When's Valve suing Blizzard? Oh right, you can't copyright a goddamn game format.
I hope PUBG gets fucked. They're selling a badly put together mod as a complete game, and the only reason it had any popularity was because of the novelty of the idea - Fortnite is far more popular because it's actually a complete game. I also hope Fortnite gets fucked. They sued fourteen-year-olds for cheating, and are still pursuing the one who fought back. I'm trying to figure out who I'm on the side of here.
-
@blakeyrat said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
So what? As someone pretty left-wing myself: if that's not a perfect example of "that's the free market, sucks for you" I don't know what is.
Considering like 2/3rds of the women doing game streaming are just taking a break from being camwhores, I really have no problem with this. You know any money they're getting is from a horny 14-year-old who's hoping they take their tops off in the next video.
That's the problem with the industry, basically. When you watch a guy, you're watching it because he's funny and interesting and entertaining to listen to. Girls didn't have to put in the same level of effort when it was just a handful of nerds doing livestreaming - just by being a girl you would get tons of viewers and donations. Now that it's open to everyone, you have to impress people who aren't that handful of nerds, and turns out that requires effort. I'd much rather watch Hutts expertly pretend to be dumb than some random chick with large tits actually be dumb. If I wanted to watch the latter, I wouldn't be on Twitch.
-
-
@pie_flavor "It's a pity they can't both lose"
-
People are concerned about their privacy, but they don't act like it
-
@timebandit It's like people who are grossed out thinking about how animals get turned into meat.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@timebandit It's like people who are grossed out thinking about how animals get turned into meat.
Gotta put my contact lenses in. I read that as "how urinals get turned into meat".
-
Better late than never...
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/390006-illinois-ratifies-equal-rights-amendment-decades-after-deadline
-
Britain should ban chicken Kiev, it's dangerous if not cooked properly
-
-
The school is there to teach kids
FileUnder: I'm stuck in a "Must read" loop. Please send help
-
@timebandit said in In other news today...:
The school is there to teach kids
FileUnder: I'm stuck in a "Must read" loop. Please send help
Can confirm: 2/
54 kids currently residing in my residence apparently have no fucking clue how to piss properly. And one's a girl. One is also apparently incapable of wiping without assistance, despite not being physically/mentally disabled.Edit: I can't count apparently.
-
@timebandit said in In other news today...:
Man battered girlfriend because 'she had undercooked his chicken Kiev'
One of the thoughts that went through my mind as I read this headline was that he had coated her with batter and attempted to fry her.
-
@hardwaregeek said in In other news today...:
he had coated her with batter and attempted to fry her.
He tenderized her first
-
-
Related:
-
No, too obvious...
-
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
No, too obvious...
Did he have wear a fish skin tie, though?
Edit: seriously though, good job. These were good news.
-
How can a sissy fight anything.
-
@blakeyrat by being fabulous...
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
No, too obvious...
thread is... wait.
Well, if it doesn't involve the same issues as current SRS methodology, it'll probably be great news to trans-women who are hoping to have SRS...
-
-
-
@anotherusername What about men who just want a vagina added to have kinkier sex? I wonder if that will ever become a thing.
-
-
@boner note that it went off when he was picking it up, due to him pulling the trigger (moron!), Not when it was dropped. Guns are almost entirely drop safe these days.
Still a moron, holsters aren't made for going upside down. Unless they're the full top cover, snap down types. And even then...
-
Today is "people panic about 1-sentence summaries of Supreme Court rulings" day.
First up:
In narrow ruling, Supreme Court gives victory to baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding
They did find in favor of the baker but not for the reason you'd think. They found that the law was not applied fairly in his case. The civil rights law itself was not changed or even addressed.
Next up:
Supreme Court throws out lower-court decision that allowed immigrant teenager to obtain abortion
Again while the headline is technically true, the reason it was thrown out was not because the Court disagreed with the ruling, but that the ruling was made on a dead case. (Meaning: the teenager had already had the abortion before the ruling happened.) Again, no changes in law happened.
Public service announcement: one sentence summaries of Supreme Court decisions are almost always, at best, misleading.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
No, too obvious...
Oh my fuckin' cod. "Jucilene Marinho" and her juicy fish-skin-turned-meat-flaps, courtesy of the "Ass-is Chateaubriand" Maternity School. By "Janet Tappin Coelho", eh?
Not tappin' that bunny.
-
@blakeyrat said in In other news today...:
They did find in favor of the baker but not for the reason you'd think. They found that the law was not applied fairly in his case. The civil rights law itself was not changed or even addressed.
I'm not so sure. The court specifically stated that his claim of freedom of expression had "a significant First Amendment speech component", and compared it to refusals by other bakers, which were ruled lawful by the same State Civil Rights Division, to bake cakes "with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages". Essentially, it seems to me that this ruling established that lower courts, in order to be fair, must treat bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gay marriages no differently than they treat bakers who refuse to bake cakes with other messages they find morally offensive; applying a double standard to them denies them of their equal rights.
As noted above, on at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service. It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included “wording and images [the baker] deemed derogatory,” ... “language and images [the baker] deemed hateful,” ... or displayed a message the baker “deemed as discriminatory...
The treatment of the conscience-based objections at issue in these three cases contrasts with the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ objection. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message the requested wedding cake would carry would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the other cases with respect to the cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. Additionally, the Division found no violation of CADA in the other cases in part because each bakery was willing to sell other products, including those depicting Christian themes, to the prospective customers. But the Commission dismissed Phillips’ willingness to sell “birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies,” App. 152, to gay and lesbian customers as irrelevant.The treatment of the other cases and Phillips’ case could reasonably be interpreted as being inconsistent as to the question of whether speech is involved, quite apart from whether the cases should ultimately be distinguished. In short, the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of these other objections.
A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness. Just as “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943), it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive. See Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. ___, – (2017) (opinion of ALITO, J.) (slip op., at 22–23). The Colorado court’s attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs.
Of note, the ruling also mentions that, to be fair, details such as whether the refusal involved the use of particular words or imagery, or simply any wedding cake at all, should be considered. I think the main reason for the court's hedging was, quite simply, that it wished to be clear that denying this case was not meant to indicate that any and all in the service industry could use this to justify their refusal to provide services for gay marriages.
...any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.
-
All this for a noise complain
Edit: How come the police officer is not charged with murder?
-
@timebandit that's amazing. On what planet is it acceptable for a cop to shoot someone through a closed garage door? I find it hard to believe that he posed a critical and immediate threat to their safety.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
On what planet is it acceptable for a cop to shoot someone through a closed garage door?
Florida
-
-
-
-
@blakeyrat said in In other news today...:
Public service announcement: one sentence summaries of
Supreme Court decisionsany news story are almost always, at best, misleading.Regardless of what you think about the case, you have to respect someone who sticks to his principles to this extent:
After Colorado's Civil Rights Commission said that Phillips could not discriminate by refusing to make cakes for same-sex weddings, he chose to stop baking wedding cakes for all customers, which he said cost him about 40 percent of his business.
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
@timebandit that's amazing. On what planet is it acceptable for a cop to shoot someone through a closed garage door? I find it hard to believe that he posed a critical and immediate threat to their safety.
Sounds like the jury was in the frame of mind of "OK he's technically guilty but we like him more than the victim, so ".
After hours of deliberations, the jury determined US$4 was the right amount. One dollar went to Hill’s mother for funeral costs and then $1 each went to each of Hill’s three children (who are ages seven, 10 and 13).
The jury found no excessive force was used and Hill was 99 per cent responsible for his own death because he was intoxicated at the time, meaning the sheriff’s department was only required to pay one per cent of the damages, court documents show.
Because of that, the verdict was then reduced to four U.S. cents, according to court documents.
TIL that being drunk makes you 99% responsible for a cop shooting you, and that funerals only cost $1.
-
That toast isn't going to itself...
-
-
Its maker, Heinz, says that only 14% of those who buy the sauce use it on salads, with many more preferring to use it in sandwiches.
Installing telemetry on the bottles was costly, but it payed off.
-
@zecc so this is what the Internet of Dips looks like?
-
-
@da-doctah Salad cream is not mayonnaise. It's tangier and more yellow
-
https://www.dailywire.com/news/31504/watch-virginia-state-police-chase-stolen-tank-ryan-saavedra
INB4 It's not a tank!
-
@jaloopa said in In other news today...:
@da-doctah Salad cream is not mayonnaise. It's tangier and more yellow
He forgot the on his post.